El Dorado County Grand Jury final report

EL DORADO COUNTY
2005 - 2006
GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
June 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to Judge Phimister
Letter from the Honorable Judge Phimister
Grand Jury Members
Notice to Respondents
REPORTS
COMMENDATION REPORT INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ................... 1
REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT......................................... 3
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT HIRING PROCESS................................................................ 5
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM ............................... 7
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING.......................................................................... 11
EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY...................................................................................... 15
EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS ........................................................................... 19
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING .................................................................................. 21
Internal Investigation
COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE ............................................................................. 25
Internal Investigation
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES ........................................................................................... 33
PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 2005- 2006 REPORTS
Mid- Year Report, January 4, 2006, and Board of Supervisor’s Responses
GJ05- 027 Mid- Term Report, May 9, 2006
GRAND JURY MEMBERS 2005- 2006
Doug Clough, Foreman 07/ 01/ 05 - 05/ 11/ 06
Donald R. Brooks, Foreman 05/ 12/ 06 - 06/ 30/ 06
Iris K. Capriola
Rita Clayton
Peri Curry
Mary Ann Dante
Fran DelGizzi
Van Dossey
Fredrick ( Fritz) Engel
Michael J. Johnson
Floyd Knapp
Lorrainne McLaughlin
Michael Powell
Ivonne Ramos Richardson
Teresa Stapleton
Loren Theodore
Rene ( Ray) Van Asten
Harlan J. Yelland
Former Members:
Michael Crowley
Karen Eller
Colleen Young 07/ 01/ 05 – 03/ 31/ 06
Grand Jury Recording Secretary as of 04/ 01/ 06:
Colleen Young
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
Penal Code Section 933.05. Responses to findings
( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation,
the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis; with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. The timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both
the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by
the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those
budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The
response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the
findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon
request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury
report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and
after the approval of the advising judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing
body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public
release of the final report.
COMMENDATION REPORT
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
GJ05- 059
The Information Technologies ( IT) Department was investigated by the 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury
and also the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury. Findings and recommendations were somewhat similar in
both reports.
In September, 2005, El Dorado County hired a new IT Director, Ms. Jacqueline Nilius, to lead
that department. Her background included both public and private management experience with
Orange County and IBM. Shortly after being hired, Ms. Nilius began meeting with the Grand
Jury IT Committee to address issues and follow up on recommendations raised in the
aforementioned reports.
She put practices in place to correct deficiencies, and made presentations to the Board of
Supervisors to apprise them of her business plans. She made structural changes in job
responsibilities and reporting relationships, resulting in a more cohesive work environment.
The results of her efforts have created a much more positive work experience for staff, and a
direction and focus that was lacking in the past.
Special mention should be made of the department’s ongoing cooperative spirit in assisting the
Grand Jury Committees in publication challenges and media selection. Each time we
experienced a problem, IT quickly responded to our requests.
Therefore, the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury would like to commend the IT Department for their
attention to detail in addressing problems cited in prior Final Reports.
1
BLANK PAGE
2
REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW
GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT
GJ05- 056
Reason for Report
The 2005- 06 Grand Jury created the Reports & Response Review Committee to follow up on
past responses from the Board of Supervisors. In some of the past responses, the term, “ The
recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,” or, “ The
recommendation requires further analysis” was used. These responses do not follow the penal
code mandated format of responding. The Jury contacted the Office of the Chief Administrator
and requested meetings to review past reports to encourage County Departments to place
timeframes on responses, as prescribed by the penal code. The following past reports were
reviewed:
FY 2003- 2004 Report
• Regarding the expansion of the current Animal Control facility in South Lake Tahoe, the
report now states that the expansion and correction to any infraction cited by the Grand
Jury is anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2007. A total of six recommendations
failing to comply with the penal code requirements were cited.
• The General Services Department will evaluate options for window upgrades and a
selection will be implemented by fall of 2006.
• The Material Recovery Facility responded to two ( 2) Findings and Recommendations.
These were addressed and have been implemented. No follow- up is necessary at this
time.
FY 2004- 2005 Report
• South Lake Tahoe Mental Health facility responded to four ( 4) Findings and
Recommend- ations. Roof and gutters, as well as heat and air circulation, have been
addressed and implemented. ADA compliant problems of the building will be addressed
by moving this department to new facilities. Anticipated move is to be completed by fall
of 2008.
Other responses are being studied. The Grand Jury in cooperation with the Chief Administrative
Office has initiated a follow- up procedure to track responses that require a timeframe for
implementation.
Commendation
The Grand Jury wishes to thank the Board of Supervisors and the CAO for their help in initiating
this Reports & Response Review tracking system. Future Grand Juries will continue to track the
necessary responses to insure the proper responses as per the penal code.
3
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
HIRING PROCESS
GJ 05- 029
Reason for the Report
The 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the hiring, by the El Dorado Irrigation
District ( EID), of a high level employee with an alleged criminal background. This matter was
reported locally in the newspaper.
Background
EID had a procedure in place requiring prospective employees to fill out an application. This
procedure was not followed in this case.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
• None
Documents Reviewed
• Copies of newspaper articles
• Employment agreements between the employee and EID
• Job description of affected employee’s position
• Current employment packet for new applicants to EID
• Letter from EID Counsel
Facts
1. In January 2004, an agreement was entered into by EID and the employee to perform the
duties of Human Resources Director.
2. In June 2005 the employee’s alleged criminal past came to light and he was placed on
administrative leave while the matter was investigated by EID.
3. In June 2005, the employee and EID entered into a new agreement for the employee to
resign as Human Resources Director and to assume the duties of Assistant to the General
Manager.
• The new duties were to perform organizational analysis and other duties as
assigned by the General Manager
• The employee has no supervisory duties and no district employees report to him
5
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: By EID’s own admission, in a letter dated November 7, 2005, they failed to follow
their own procedure for a completed employment application in the hiring of the employee in
question.
1R. Recommendation: Training of department managers to ensure compliance with
established procedures.
2F. Finding: New procedures have been put in place for a completed employment application,
as well as a full background check, on all new employees. Applicants must also sign a
Certification of Information/ Release when filing an application for employment.
2R1. Recommendation: Clearly establish a central repository in Human Resources for
all employment applications filed with EID
2R2. Recommendation: Periodic review of all applications to ensure procedures are
followed by all department managers.
A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
6
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM
GJ05- 028
Reason for the Report
On October 24, 2005 the Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the implementation of the
Executive Wellness Program ( EWP), also known as the Management Wellness Program of the
El Dorado Irrigation District ( EID).
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed:
• General Manager of EID
• Employee of EID
Documents Reviewed:
• E- mails:
July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors and
Department Heads
July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors
July 19, 2004 from Human Resources Director to Payroll Clerk
July 28, 2004 from employee to EID Counsel
• EID Website
• Memorandum from employee to EID General Manager, May 10, 2004
• Letter from CPA to Human Resources Director, August 2, 2004
• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, December 23, 2005
• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, February 28, 2006
• Government Code Section 53200
Background
A health insurance plan for EID employees was in effect from 1980 with revisions made in 1983
and 1994. Prior to July 2004 the Board of Directors received “ cash- in- lieu” benefits for medical
expenses.
The EWP, also known as Management Wellness Program, was implemented on July 1, 2004. It
provides benefits up to $ 5,000 annually for medical, dental, vision and healthcare costs and
expenses incurred that are not covered by an insurance plan. This applies only to the Board of
Directors, General Manager, General Counsel, Department Heads, Assistant Department Heads,
their spouses and their dependents.
An additional $ 250 ( an all employee benefit) is provided, if the eligible EWP member belongs to
a health club.
7
Also, paid administrative leave for the management group was increased to 80 hours ( from an
unknown base) in addition to vacation and holiday time.
This EWP was initiated by and under the authority of the General Manager and the then Human
Resources Director.
Facts:
1. The General Manager and the Director of Human Resources made an executive decision
to initiate this EWP.
2. An e- mail notice sent on July 12, 2004, stated that the EWP was retroactively
implemented on July 1, 2004. Reimbursements under the Program are subject to Section
105 of the Internal Revenue Code.
3. No written notice was given to the Board of Directors and no discussions were held with
the Board before this announcement.
4. The Grand Jury requested copies of minutes regarding this program and was informed by
the General Manager that no minutes existed.
5. No written records exist regarding the criteria or codification of the EWP.
6. In response to an inquiry of the EID Human Resources Director, a certified public
accountant ( CPA), in a letter dated August 2, 2004, stated the following:
“ I researched the discrimination rules for ‘ self funded’ insurance
plans. Section 105 of the IRC states a self- insured health plan may
not discriminate in favor of certain individuals and must satisfy
certain ‘ nondiscriminatory rules’ which include covering 70% of the
total employees or make at least 70% of employees eligible to
participate, provided 80% if those eligible actually participate; or
cover a classification of employees that the IRS finds does not
discriminate in favor of ‘ highly compensated individuals.’ For
purposes of applying for these tests, the El Dorado Irrigation
District‘ s proposed plan did not qualify under these rules.
Consequently any benefits payable to any individuals under the
proposed plan would be deemed discriminatory and therefore taxed
to the individuals. Research of current revenue rulings and other
associated regulations failed to yield an allowable exception to the
above law.”
7. When the EWP policy was initiated no source of funding was identified.
8. During the same time frame, employees were asked to give up raises for 2 years and rate
payers were billed for rate increases in both January, 2005 and January, 2006.
8
9. The General Manager had the authority to approve expenditures of up to $ 50,000
annually without Board approval.
10. The maximum cost of the EWP was estimated not to exceed $ 60,000.
Findings/ Recommendations:
1F. Finding: The EID General Manager violated district administrative procedures that has a
$ 50,000 limitation by implementing a benefit program exceeding approved expenditure
guidelines.
1Ra. Recommendation: The EWP should be formally brought before the Board of
Directors for public hearing and vote.
1Rb. Recommendation: In the future, all employee benefit plans, including
management’s, should be presented before the Board of Directors for public hearing and
vote.
1Rc. Recommendation: Suspend the $ 5,000 EWP benefit until an independent audit
determines the legality under IRS guidelines.
2F. Finding: The criteria utilized for benefit coverage under the EWP is very broad in terms of
eligibility, dependents and coverage.
2Ra. Recommendation: Define specific criteria for those activities eligible for
reimbursement.
2Rb. Recommendation: Specifically define what constitutes a dependent.
3F. Finding: No requirement exists for certification of a medical condition and related expenses
not covered by an insurance plan.
3R. Recommendation: Certification should be required from a physician for
reimbursement of expenses eligible under the EWP.
4F. Finding: The practice of giving Board of Directors “ cash- in- lieu” benefits prior to
07- 01- 2004 appears to be illegal.
4R. Recommendation: An audit must be conducted by an independent agency to
determine the legality of the “ cash- in- lieu” program.
A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
9
BLANK PAGE
10
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING
GJ05- 022
Reason for the Report
The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint regarding a meeting of the Commission
on Aging, on November 18, 2004, wherein a violation of The Brown Act is alleged to have
occurred.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
• Commission on Aging Members
Documents Reviewed
• Meeting Agenda for November 18, 2004
• Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2004
• California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963
o The Brown Act
• Meeting Minutes and Agendas for random months
o November 2004
o August 2005
o September 2005
o October 2005
o November 2005
Background
The Commission on Aging is an advisory body to the Department of Human Services and the El
Dorado County Board of Supervisors, regarding programs administered by the Department of
Human Services.
The Commission on Aging meets monthly to conduct business. Agendas are posted to inform the
public of the time, place, and subject matter. Minutes of the meeting are published.
During the meeting of November 18, 2004 a member of the Commission suggested that they
adjourn to closed session. According to testimony they did adjourn to a closed session and
excluded members of the public.
The Agenda did not include that a closed session was planned at that particular meeting. The
Minutes reflect that a closed session was held; however, no synopsis of the discussion was
posted.
Testimony also indicates that the Commission routinely asks members of the public in
attendance to identify themselves and whom they represent.
11
As a sanctioned Commission of El Dorado County, the Commission on Aging is covered by
California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963. These sections are known as The Brown
Act and cover what is allowed and how meetings must be conducted, and to insure full public
disclosure.
The following sections are a summary of the legislation wording.
Section 54954 ( a) in summary states that if an advisory committee or standing committee posts
an agenda at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting the meeting shall be considered as a
regular meeting of the legislative body for purposes of The Brown Act.
Section 54954.2 ( a) in summary states that the agenda must be posted at least 72 hours before a
regular meeting and must contain a brief general description of each item of business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. The
only exceptions to the requirement of posting agenda items are: “( 1) Emergency situations, ( 2)
Two- thirds vote of the body determines there is need for immediate action and the item came to
their attention after the posting of the agenda, and ( 3) The item was posted for a prior meeting
and the meeting was not more than five calendar days prior and the item was continued to the
meeting where action is being taken”.
Section 54957.1 ( a) in summary requires a public report of any action taken in closed session
and the vote or abstention of every member present. If no action is taken the minutes should
reflect that fact.
Section 54953.5 ( a) in summary states that a member of the public shall not be required, as a
condition of attendance, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a
questionnaire, or otherwise fulfill any obligation precedent to his or her attendance
Section 54960.1 In summary, by subsections, lists penalties regarding violations of The Brown
Act.
Facts
1. On November 18, 2004 at a regular meeting of the Commission on Aging a closed
session was held.
2. This closed session had not been properly noticed as required by The Brown Act.
3. The Minutes reflect that a closed session was held, however, no indication as to the
subject matter discussed was recorded.
4. Members of the public in attendance at Commission on Aging meetings are routinely
asked to identify themselves.
12
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The members of the Commission on Aging are not well versed in the requirements
and penalties of The Brown Act.
1R. Recommendation: Members of the Commission on Aging be issued copies of The
Brown Act to be read and applied.
2F. Finding: On November 18, 2004 the Commission on Aging went into closed session without
prior public notice on the Agenda. Government Code Section 54954.2 ( a) grants exception
where a body may go into closed session without notice, however, none of the exceptions were
met in this instance.
2R. Recommendation: Future closed sessions should strictly adhere to the provision of
the law.
3F. Finding: Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting reflect the closed session, however, no
synopsis of the item discussed was recorded.
3R. Recommendation: Amend the Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting to reflect
the item discussed and the result.
4F. Finding: The Commission on Aging does not hold closed sessions often. This is supported
by testimony and review of Agendas.
4R1. Recommendation: Protocol be put into place to ensure new members, when
appointed, receive proper training and a copy of The Brown Act.
4R2. Recommendation: Support staff must become familiar with The Brown Act to
ensure that proper posting and notification of closed sessions is provided in public
documents.
5F. Finding: The Commission on Aging routinely asks people in the audience to identify
themselves and whom they represent.
5R. Recommendation: The Commission on Aging require identification only from those
persons addressing the Commission as a whole on a specific matter.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
13
BLANK PAGE
14
EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY
GJ05- 032
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint regarding the security provided for the Superior
Courts in El Dorado County. Upon investigation, the Grand Jury believes that the security needs
to be improved. In addition, budgetary accounting from the County for the security provided is
not detailed and does not fully substantiate payment requests.
Scope of the Investigation
During jury year 2005- 2006, members of the Grand Jury made visits to all the court facilities in
El Dorado County.
People Interviewed:
• El Dorado County Sheriff
• Various Sheriff Department Employees
• Sheriff Sergeant In Charge Of Court Security
• Superior Court Executive Officer
• Various Superior Court Employees
Documents Reviewed:
• 2001- 2002 Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between Court and Sheriff
• Draft of 2006- 2007 MOU
Buildings Inspected:
• 2850 Fairlane Court, Bldg. C, Placerville
• 495 Main Street, Placerville
• 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe
• 3321 Cameron Park Dr., Cameron Park
Background
The employees of the Superior Courts of El Dorado County are State employees. Many of the
court’s support services are provided by El Dorado County. Court security is provided by the El
Dorado County Sheriff’s Department. The court buildings are owned by El Dorado County,
although they are to be turned over to the State in the future. Security is contractually
documented in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Court and the Sheriff.
While the most recent MOU expired in 2002, service has continued with all requirements and
pricing handled without a contract. A new MOU is being developed for FY 2006/ 2007. This
MOU draft specifies a fixed amount to be paid by the court.
15
Department 7 is located downstairs in County Building C and has a metal detector, but the
detector is only functional while court is in session. The unscreened access beyond the metal
detector is still accessible when court is closed. A weapon could be hidden in this area while
court is closed and then retrieved later while court is in session.
Department 7 has two small holding areas, one each for men and women. These areas are often
loaded beyond their capacity.
Department 8 is located on the ground floor of County Building C and has no metal detector for
screening court entry. Department 8 is not a criminal court, but does have family court and traffic
court hearings, both potentially volatile situations.
The Court and the Sheriff’s Department both wish to improve security in Departments 7 and 8.
This would require relocating the metal detection unit upstairs to service both courts. It would
also require limiting downstairs access near Department 7 to prevent off- hour access. These
efforts have been rebuffed by the county because it would be a hindrance to other county
departments and/ or citizens who do business in building C.
Departments 3, 4, 11, and 12 are co- located in South Lake Tahoe. Departments 3 and 4 are
criminal courts, without a holding cell. Prisoners enter through employee hallways and often
must remain in public or employee hallways ( albeit with a Sheriff) until called to court.
Facts
1. MOU for court security expired 2002
2. 2006/ 2007 MOU calls for fixed dollar amount to be paid
3. Departments 7 and 8 are in County Building C, which was never built to be a court
4. Holding area in Department 7 is often over- crowded
5. Department 8 has no metal screening
6. Courts in South Lake Tahoe do not have a holding area
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: Memorandum of Understanding for court security specifies a fixed dollar amount
for the year with some provision for changes.
1R. Recommendation: All payment requests from the Sheriff for court security should
be based on the actual hours the Sheriff spent on court security. Time keeping reports
should be provided detailing all hours and other expenditures.
16
2F. Finding: Both the Sheriff and Court management agree that security for Departments 7 and
8 needs to be improved. Failure to do so exposes the Court employees and Court clients to
unnecessary risk.
2R. Recommendation: Immediately relocate the metal detector in Building C to provide
screening of both Departments 7 and 8. Install gates to close off court areas when in
recess.
3F. Finding: South Lake Tahoe does not have a holding cell.
3R. Recommendation: Provide a holding cell in South Lake Tahoe court.
4F. Finding: The west slope courts are located in logistically diverse locations, in buildings that
are not suited for the issues that a 21st century court must face.
4R. Recommendation: Aggressively pursue consolidating the west slope courts into a
new, single facility, co- located with the county jail. Identify County and State funding required
to move forward quickly.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
17
BLANK PAGE
18
EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS
GJ05- 060
Reason for the Report
Per Penal Code § 919( b) members of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury inspected the correctional
facilities located within the boundaries of the county.
Scope of the Inspection
Members of the Grand Jury made a physical visit to each facility. All accessible areas were
toured.
• At the Jails and Juvenile Halls, Managers and Supervisory Staff briefed Grand Jury
members on the operations and conducted tours.
• Explanations were given for:
1. Staffing levels.
2. Programs in each facility.
3. Future expansion plans
Background
With the exception of the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall all facilities are aging and, for the
most part, are well maintained. ( Exceptions noted under findings)
Outside agencies, such as U. S. Marshals, will house prisoners on as needed basis in the County
Jails. Alpine County contracts with El Dorado County for jail services.
A contract nurse is on duty and a doctor is on call at all Jail and Juvenile Hall facilities. A
contract dentist provides emergency dental care on premises.
Food at all facilities is provided by on premise kitchen staff as well as inmate workers. The
menus are varied and provide necessary nutritional value. The facilities are inspected on a
regular basis for compliance with applicable health codes. Staff receives periodic training to
insure proper food handling.
Facts
1. Employees at each facility are well trained and appear to enjoy their jobs.
2. Supervisory staff at each facility encourages employee participation in resolving
problems encountered in the workplace.
3. El Dorado County Jail in Placerville was visited April 3, 2006. No adverse conditions
were observed.
4. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in Placerville was visited March 13, 2006. No adverse
conditions were observed.
19
5. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. No
adverse conditions observed.
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: El Dorado County Jail in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. It
was noted that the carpet in the control room is frayed.
1R. Recommendation: Inspect all carpeted areas and repair/ replace carpeting as needed.
COMMENDATION
May 25, 2006, the Grand Jury toured the Growlersburg Conservation Camp located in
Georgetown. This facility is to be commended for their on- site program. The facility is jointly
run by the CA Department of Corrections and CA Department of Forestry.
A garden provides a large number of fresh vegetables for inmates throughout the growing season
that saves a substantial amount of budget monies.
The wood shop constructs furniture for governmental agencies on a cost of materials basis. The
quality of work is excellent. The wood shop manages to continue running despite recent budget
cuts. This shows a dedication by staff to have a meaningful program in place for inmates.
A response is required by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors within ninety
( 90) days. See Table of Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
20
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING
Internal Investigation
GJ05- 057
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury visited and inspected buildings in the county that were built prior to 1950.
After inspecting the buildings located at 515 & 525 Main Street in Placerville, it was determined
that the Office of the District Attorney, housed at the above addresses, required further attention.
Scope of the Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury toured the District Attorney’s Office by appointment on October 13,
2005. We were given a history of the building and briefed on the operations of the District
Attorney’s office.
People Interviewed:
• District Attorney Personnel
• Court Executive Officer
• Court Operations Managers
• Administrative Personnel
• General Services Personnel
Documents Reviewed:
• Prior Grand Jury Reports regarding the District Attorney’s Office Building
• Letters between the Grand Jury and CAL OSHA regarding the condition of the
District Attorney’s Office Building
• General Service’s Interdepartmental Memo
• Board of Supervisor’s Agendas, May 22 and June 12, 2001 regarding the District
Attorney's Office Building
Background
The building which houses the District Attorney’s Office is one of historical significance. It was
first built and used as a Post Office.
To enter the District Attorney’s Office one must walk up several stairs to the door. There is no
sign advising citizens with disabilities how to enter the building. Upon entering the office it is
apparent that space is limited and that employees have outgrown the space allotted to them. The
aisles are congested with boxes of files. The lighting in the main “ support staff” area is dated,
yellowed and does not appear to give sufficient light to the employees. Most employees have
additional lighting on their desks. Numerous fans throughout the office are used by the personnel
to cool and move the stale air.
21
The basement of the District Attorney’s Office at 515 Main Street was flooded on October 9,
2000, resulting in a mold problem; all mold has been removed at great expense. The Board of
Supervisors issued an action item in June, 2001 that stated employees could not work
permanently in this area. This level is used for storage, a conference room, a photo enlargement
room, IT work area, and a make- shift workout area with shower. There is no elevator to this area.
It is dark, damp and the air smells musty.
Clearly this building has served the community well in the past, but it is no longer able to
comply to certain codes ( i. e. fire sprinklers, ADA) and it would not be wise to spend money to
retrofit the building into compliance, or to try to expand office space into the basement.
Facts
1. 515 Main Street is an old building that is of historic significance.
2. There is no sign at the street entrance directing persons with disabilities to enter at the
rear of the building.
3. Parking is insufficient for current as well as future needs.
4. The employees of 515 Main Street are allowed to use only the main floor for office
space.
5. There is insufficient room for the current staff with no room for growth.
6. Aisles are congested with boxes for storage.
7. Old PC hardware is stored in numerous areas, under desks and on file cabinets.
8. Lighting in the support area is inadequate.
9. Due to the age of the building, overhead fire sprinklers are not legally required; however,
there are important, original, irreplaceable documents and evidence that can be destroyed
in the event of a fire.
10. As of the date of our inspection fire drills had not occurred, although procedures are in
place.
11. Ceiling tiles at the main level are water stained from either current or previous roof leaks.
12. Repairs to the lower level of the office building will not solve the myriad of other
significant deficiencies.
13. There is no elevator between floors in the building.
14. The ceiling in conference room in the lower level is peeling and does not appear to have
been repaired since the Grand Jury report of 2002/ 2003 first reported the problem.
15. Mold was visible in the shower and on the shower curtain in the “ workout” area.
16. On June 11, 2001, the Board of Supervisors for El Dorado County found that “ the
basement space is inadequate for the District Attorney’s staff . . . including space needs
and inability to fully comply with the requirements of the ADA.”
17. DA Investigators are housed in a separate building, 525 Main Street, creating workplace
inefficiencies.
22
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The District Attorney and staff have outgrown their office space.
1R. Recommendation: Relocate the District Attorney and his office staff into one office
facility.
2F. Finding: 515 & 525 Main Street are not suitable for any tenancy in their` current condition.
2R. Recommendation: Renovate these buildings if required for future county use.
Commentary:
To our knowledge there is no long range plan to build a new facility that would accommodate
the District Attorney and other related offices. The County owns properties that could
accommodate such a structure combined with a new, efficient and modern Justice Center for the
DA and other related county departments. See Grand Jury Report regarding leased facilities.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
23
BLANK PAGE
24
COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE
Internal Investigation
GJ05- 055
Reason for the Report
El Dorado County government offices are housed in both county owned and county leased
properties. The County pays over $ 2.2 million a year on leased properties. El Dorado County
continues to unnecessarily lease, rather than own, facilities for county departments. The County
should aggressively replace leased facilities with owned facilities.
Scope of the Investigation
Discussions and Interviews with:
• CAO
• General Services personnel
• Auditor and various personnel
• Members of the Board of Supervisors
Documents Reviewed:
• El Dorado County Leased Facilities, rev. 08- 24- 05
• Building Rents and Leases Spreadsheet
• General Services Proposed Capital Improvement Plan, rev. 01- 30- 06
• Rental Expenses: FY05 MS Excel Spreadsheet
Background
El Dorado County spent over $ 2.2 million on real estate leases in FY2005.
El Dorado County has grown enormously over the past 10 years and will continue to grow. With
growth comes the need to increase county services. New personnel require an expanded as well
as a safe and adequate workplace.
County citizens are currently paying tax dollars to lease buildings, when their tax dollars could
be going toward buildings the county would eventually own.
The County leases certain office space due to program reimbursements from local, State and
Federal Governments. Most county health department offices are in leased facilities. There is a
misconception that funding sources would be lost if these departments were housed in county
owned buildings.
For the benefit of county residents, a current list of the departments housed in leased facilities is
attached to this report.
25
Facts
1. The County paid the following approximate sums for leasing these facilities in FY2005:
a. $ 175,000 to house the Department of Transportation in South Lake Tahoe
b. $ 96,000 to house a satellite office to the Building Department in El Dorado Hills
c. $ 86,000 to lease space for the Probation Department, 471 Pierroz Road, Placerville
d. $ 79,000 to house the office of the Public Defender in Placerville
e. $ 68,000 to house the Sheriff’s detectives in Diamond Springs
f. $ 40,000 to house the Department of Transportation in El Dorado Hills
g. $ 23,900 to lease space for the D. A. Victim Witness/ MDIC at 550 Main Street,
Placerville
h. $ 13,755 a year to lease space for a Law Library at 550 Main Street, Placerville
2. Many Governmental health programs will reimburse the County for office space in
County owned buildings as well as in County leased buildings.
3. The County has issued bonds in the past to purchase buildings or land.
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The County spends in excess of $ 2,000,000 per year on real estate leases.
1R. Recommendation: The County should purchase land and build facilities for
permanent long term use.
2F. Finding: The County currently builds facilities or acquires property on a cash basis.
2R. Recommendation: The County pursue various creative financing options to
accelerate acquisition of property and to build facilities, i. e., lease options, land swaps,
bonds, lease revenue bonds, County Developer Partnerships, etc.
3F. Finding: It is a misconception by various county officials that the County would lose
program reimbursed funds if they were housed in a County owned facility.
3Ra. Recommendation: Analyze program contracts/ agreements to determine financial
impact of owning versus leasing.
3Rb. Recommendation: Educate senior county managers regarding specific program
reimbursement of funds for leased and owned buildings.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
26
El Dorado County Leased Facilities
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 9,056 04/ 01/ 97 0.976 $ 106,105.68
3057 Briw Road, Suite B 03/ 31/ 04
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES 29,819 01/ 01/ 96 1.004 $ 359,216.88
3057 Briw Road, Suite A 12/ 31/ 02
Placerville, CA 95667
LAW LIBRARY 1,667 10/ 01/ 00 0.688 $ 13,755.00
550 Main Street 09/ 30/ 05
Placerville, CA 95667
COMM. SER/ CARE SERVICES 5,340 09/ 15/ 02 1.227 $ 78,654.48
Office Space 09/ 14/ 05
630 Main Street
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 960 09/ 01/ 00 1.223 $ 14,093.28
Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 03
941 Spring Street, # 7
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3,060 01/ 01/ 00 0.961 $ 35,271.48
EMS/ Ambulance Billing 12/ 31/ 02
415 Placerville Drive, Suites J, K & L
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 06/ 15/ 02 0.935 $ 14,810.52
Vital Statistics 05/ 31/ 05
415 Placerville Drive, Suites M & N
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 09/ 01/ 03 1.000 $ 15,840.00
Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 06
415 Placerville Dr., Suites S & T
Placerville , CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 660 09/ 20/ 02 0.913 $ 7,227.84
Health Promotions 09/ 19/ 05
415 Placerville Drive, Suite R
Placerville, CA 95667
SO STAR PROGRAM 1,253 01/ 01/ 05 n/ a n/ a
6051 Gold Hill Road 12/ 31/ 08
Placerville, CA 95667
27
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
MENTAL HEALTH/ Admin. 7,567 06/ 01/ 98 1.014 $ 92,034.00
344 Placerville Drive 05/ 31/ 03
Suites 12- 18 & 20
Placerville, CA 95667
MENTAL HEALTH 1,162 11/ 01/ 00 1.025 $ 14,288.16
344 Placerville Drive 10/ 31/ 03
Suite 11
Placerville, CA 95667
MENTAL HEALTH 3,700 05/ 01/ 96 1.000 $ 44,218.44
Day Treatment Program 04/ 30/ 01
2808 Mallard Lane
Placerville, CA 95667
D. A. VICTIM WITNESS/ MDIC 1,460 09/ 01/ 04 1.250 $ 23,900.04
550 Main Street, Suite H
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES 1,838 04/ 01/ 99 1.237 $ 27,273.84
JOB ONE PROGRAM 02/ 28/ 06
4535 Missouri Flat Rd., Suite 1A
Placerville, CA 95667
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH 1,004 09/ 15/ 04 1.550 $ 18,674.40
El Dorado Hills Sub- Station 09/ 14/ 07
981 Governor Drive, Suite 104
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a
Pollock Pines Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08
6430 Pony Express Trail
Pollock Pines, CA 95726
S. O. WNET TASK FORCE 1,300 06/ 01/ 00 1.212 $ 18,912.24
3330 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 900 05/ 31/ 05
Cameron Park, CA 95682
SHERIFF'S DETECTIVES 3,755 12/ 01/ 04 1.500 $ 67,590.00
720 Pleasant Valley Road 12/ 31/ 08
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a
Fort Jim Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08
3700 Fort Jim Rd.
Placerville, CA 95667
28
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
SHERIFF'S STORAGE 4,000 09/ 20/ 02 0.702 $ 33,708.96
3615 China Garden Rd. ( Stage Coach) 09/ 19/ 05
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a $ 100.00
5941 Union Mine Road 01/ 08/ 06
El Dorado, CA 95673
HUMAN SVCS- 24 PARKING 24 parking 06/ 01/ 01 n/ a $ 5,820.00
3047 Briw Rd. spaces 05/ 31/ 03
Placerville, CA 95667
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 03 n/ a $ 12,240.00
Shingle Springs Community Center 06/ 30/ 04
4440 South Shingle Road
Shingle Springs , CA 95682
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 5,195.64
Pollock Pines Senior Center 04/ 01/ 01
5581 Gail Street
Pollock Pines, CA 95726
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 18,000.00
Mother Lode Lions Club 06/ 30/ 02
1741 Missouri Flat Road
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
PROBATION DEPARTMENT 7,000 12/ 12/ 04 1.028 $ 86,378.04
471 Pierroz Rd. 12/ 11/ 07
Placerville, CA 95667
S. O. FIRING RANGE n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a n/ a
5941 Union Mine Rd. 01/ 08/ 06
El Dorado, CA 95673
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL land only 03/ 08/ 82 n/ a
2301 Coolwater Creek Road 03/ 09/ 07 $ 1.00
Placerville, CA 95667
SHERIFF 2,520 07/ 01/ 99 0.205 $ 6,204.00
3 Training Classrooms 07/ 31/ 03
100 Placerville Dr.
Placerville, CA 95667
OAKRIDGE COUNTY LIBRARY 6,400 09/ 01/ 99 0.716 $ 55,004.00
1120 Harvard Way 08/ 31/ 04
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
29
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6,680 06/ 20/ 03 1.204 $ 96,480.60
4507 Golden Foothill Parkway 3 Sierra 06/ 30/ 08
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
PUBLIC DEFENDER 5,500 10/ 01/ 01 1.136 $ 75,000.00
4327 Golden Center Drive 09/ 30/ 08
Placerville, CA 95667
IHSS 2,100 01/ 01/ 01 1.126 $ 28,362.96
694 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 9 12/ 31/ 05
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
GEORGETOWN ZOB OFFICE 100 03/ 01/ 98 0.900 $ 1,080.00
6680 Orleans St., Suite D mo to mo
Georgetown, CA 95634
GEORGETOWN LIBRARY 1,200 10/ 01/ 98 0.750 $ 10,800.00
6680 Orleans Street, Suite 3 09/ 30/ 03
Georgetown, CA 95634
MENTAL HEALTH 3,562 02/ 10/ 04 2.004 $ 85,650.84
Day Treatment Program 01/ 31/ 09
1120 Third Street
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
HUMAN SERVICES 7,200 01/ 01/ 01 2.174 $ 187,791.48
971 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 05
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
HUMAN SERVICES 3,836 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 97,370.76
981 Silver Dollar, Suites 1- 5 12/ 31/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
MENTAL HEALTH 3,745 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 95,027.52
981 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
DOT 6,000 04/ 15/ 02 2.440 $ 175,680.00
924 Emerald Bay Road 04/ 14/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 95616
HUMAN SERVICES - JOB ONE 477 mo to mo 1.400 $ 8,016.00
1029 Tekala, Suite 5
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 6,000 07/ 15/ 02 2.451 $ 176,448.84
924 Emerald Bay Road 07/ 14/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
30
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
DOT SNOW REMOVAL CREW 1,408 1.172 $ 6,600.00
551 McKinney Creek Road
Tahoma, CA 96142
TOTALS $ 2,218,826.92
annual cost
31
BLANK PAGE
32
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
GJ05- 050
Executive Summary
The 2005- 06 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint about the planning and building
processes used by the new Development Services Department. The complainant wanted the
Grand Jury to investigate the Planning and Building Divisions toward the goal of improving
overall performance, including customer satisfaction. The following deficiencies were pointed
out by the complainant:
• The divisions do not seem to have guidelines or processes in place to help staff identify
how long a project will take from application to permit issuance.
• Permit issuance for all projects ( residential, discretionary and ministerial) is taking too
long.
• There is no consistency as to the information being disseminated; it varies depending on
the staff member who is waiting on and/ or working with the customer.
• Staff uses personal judgment in the planning processes instead of following applicable
rules.
• There are no standardized checklists for customers to use to assist them in the permit
process.
• There is a backlog of cases related to the General Plan implementation and the
department has no strategy in place to deal with the problem.
• There is no communication between affected department heads to insure the expeditious
processing of discretionary projects.
• The County Planning Commission rubber stamps departmental staff decisions instead of
setting policy for issues that come under its jurisdiction.
• Staff spends the majority of its time “ fighting fires” instead of managing the divisions.
• The department internet website provides incorrect information.
• The planning and building divisions do not provide enough emphasis on customer
satisfaction.
After numerous interviews with departmental management, other County staff, members of
various county trades and business organizations, county residents, and a thorough review of
public records, the Grand Jury decided to write a report.
33
The Grand Jury found that high expectations have been placed on the department top
management to complete the merger of the two separate departments, implement the General
Plan, eliminate case backlog, and continue to process new applications, all on a timely basis.
Although the new Director has made many positive changes in a short period of time, the fact
remains that the divisions do not have sufficient personnel. The divisions have had recruitment
problems with Senior Planners and Engineers who are used in the Plan Check process depending
on the complexity of the project. The Board has recently approved a new compensation package
designed to alleviate this problem and time will tell if the increase is sufficient to entice
candidates.
The department has indicated that it does not plan to hire additional personnel due to a decrease
in building projects; however, single family dwelling permits are taking eight weeks or longer,
discretionary projects are taking six to nine months before they go to public hearing and
ministerial projects such as pools, decks and inspection exempt agricultural buildings are taking
six weeks. The lack of sufficient and qualified personnel is resulting in very unpopular and
unacceptable delays in issuing permits. It results in increased building costs for the County and
delays in the implementation of measures under the General Plan since most of the Planners have
been on board two years or less. The Grand Jury recommends the hiring of additional plan
checkers in the applicable classifications and/ or allocating funds for outside consultants.
The Grand Jury recommends more training for personnel to insure consistency in dissemination
of information to the customers and to eliminate mistakes made by Building Inspectors on
building sites. The Grand Jury also recommends changes to departmental participation in
discretionary projects to make sure that the customer is not subject to numerous changes and
extra expense.
Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends the establishment of specific performance standards to
gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness. Furthermore, it
recommends that Customer Questionnaires be handed out with the final permit and the final
building inspection in order to obtain a more complete picture of their performance.
In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals who
would speak to the Jury for fear of retaliation by departmental personnel. They had chosen not to
speak up before because their livelihood depends on them staying on good terms with
departmental staff. The Grand Jury stated that it is the Board of Supervisors who are ultimately
responsible for the implementation of the General Plan, and that any retaliation against a
customer by staff will be subject to disciplinary action.
Background
The county department, headed by the Director of Development Services, has a budget of
$ 11,644,579 and 122 allocated positions of which approximately 99 are filled. Under the
Director, 3 Deputy Directors oversee the Planning, Building and Administration functions
respectively. The Deputy Director- Administration functions as an office manager overseeing
such functions as personnel, purchasing, and other administrative duties. The Deputy Director
34
over Building supervises three Branch Managers who are responsible for managing the three
Permit Centers located in Placerville, El Dorado Hills and South Lake Tahoe. These Permit
Centers are designed to function as a one stop center for plan review, issuance of permits,
building code compliance and inspections.
The major responsibilities of the Building Division are to issue building and grading permits for
commercial and residential buildings; conduct plan checks and building inspections to insure that
plans comply with applicable building codes; and assist the public with building concerns and
code enforcement issues.
The Planning Services Division has three distinct functions: current planning, long range
planning and special projects. The Current Planning unit is focused on permit and development
application processing in conjunction with the Permit Centers. The staff assigned to this function
is primarily responsible for processing discretionary development applications, such as land
divisions, special use permits and zoning applications including the required California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) analysis. The Long Range planning unit is responsible for
the implementation of the County General Plan and compliance with a variety of State long
range planning requirements. The Special Projects unit prepares and oversees the preparation of
CEQA documents for County capital improvement projects related to new or expanded facilities
such as park projects as well as new County buildings. This unit also participates in the
development of plans and administration of regional, State, and Federal endangered species,
programs, habitat conservation, and cultural resources management.
The department also has a new Code Enforcement Section with three staff members headed by a
Zoning Administrator. This unit enforces violations of the County Code and other related codes
and ordinances. Hearings are conducted by the officers related to matters involving safety related
or non- permitted items such as illegal business, fire created hazards and substandard or
dangerous housing. This section works in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department to enforce
the vehicle abatement program.
The department provides staff to the County Planning Commission who is the Board’s advisor
on land use planning. The Commission has five members, each one appointed by a member of
the Board of Supervisors from his/ her respective District. The Commission reviews matters
related to planning and development. The Commission either approves or denies or makes
recommendations to the Board. The Commission meets twice a month.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
Member, Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer ( CAO)
Assistant County Counsel
Director, Department of Development Services ( DS)
DS Deputy Director – Planning
DS Deputy Director – Building Official
DS Deputy Director - Administration
35
DS Branch Manager – Placerville Permit Center
DS Branch Manger – El Dorado Hills Permit Center
DS Principal Planner
DS Building Inspector
Chairman, Planning Commission
Member, Building Industry Advisory Committee ( BIAC)
Housing Standards Program Manager, State Department of Housing and Community Development
Members of various County trade and business organizations, professional associations,
members at large of the building community and county residents
Documents Reviewed
2005- 2006 Fiscal Year DS Department Budget
County General Plan adopted by Board of Supervisors on July 19, 2004
County Website on Planning and Building Services
DS Department Organizational Chart
Personnel allocation figures for DS Department
Permit Center Application and Plan Check Review Process Flow Chart Sheet
Building Fee Funded Activities handout
Building Services Permit Activity handout ( 2001- 2005)
Placerville Permit Center Customer Service and Building Inspection Activity ( 2005)
Permit Fee 2006 Current Distribution handout
DS Year in Review - 2005 and Key Goals for 2006
Building Inspections Checklist Summary
General Plan Consistency Checklist
Customer Service Questionnaire
Class Specifications for Building Inspector, Planner and Engineer Series
23 different checklists used by Planning Division for processing development
applications
2005 Permit Application Packet for Single Family Dwellings in Lake Tahoe Basin
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan Application
Rule 223- 2 Fugitive Dust- Asbestos Hazard Mitigation Information
California Government Code Sections 818.4 and 818.6 pertaining to Liability of Public
Entities and Public Employees
“ Slow Growth Proves Costly- Problems Mount in Santa Barbara”- Sacramento Bee,
March 27, 2006
Facts
1. The County approved a new General Plan in July 19, 2004 to comply with the Writ of
Mandate issued by the Court on July 19,1999 directing the County to correct deficiencies
in its original approval of the 1996 General Plan. In August 31, 2005, the Sacramento
Superior Court ruled that the County had successfully addressed each of the issues raised
in the writ. The writ was lifted and on October 3, 2005 and the County began accepting
new applications that previously were prohibited under the writ.
36
2. That court ruling was appealed to the State Appellate Court in late fall 2005 and until the
court ruled on that appeal, the County continued processing development applications
under the 2004 General Plan. However, the County continued to exercise caution in the
interpretation and implementation of the General Plan while they waited for final
adjudication.
3. On April 18, 2006, the County and the El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth
reached an agreement that settled the litigation. Under the settlement agreement, the
petitioner agreed to drop its appeal and the County waived its claim for attorney’s fees
($ 21,000) and agreed to maintain the current interpretation of the General Plan Policy
related to oak woodland habitat.
4. The current Director, hired in January, 2005, was assigned the tasks of completing the
merger of the then existing Planning and Building Departments and the implementation
of the newly adopted General Plan. Additionally, he inherited a backlog of 64
development projects waiting for the writ to be lifted and 1,500 open code enforcement
cases. 30 new cases of code enforcement violations are received each month. The
department also processes over 6,000 permits a year of which over 1,500 are for new
dwellings. In 2005, over 39,000 inspection stops were conducted, and close to 24,000
individual customers were served from the Placerville office alone.
5. During 2005, the new Director was able to achieve major changes in the department such
as:
a. Created Branch Manager positions to oversee planning and building functions in
each Permit Center
b. Recruited six Planning staff to support Permit Center functions
c. Reorganized building Plan check responsibilities
d. Established a New Case review process for all new major planning projects
c. Re- established “ Express plan check” for certain categories of permits
f. Implemented a new General Plan consistency checklist for all new projects
g. Obtained contracts for “ as needed” planning services to handle increased workload
while recruitment of senior level Planners and Engineers, was underway
h. Issued a request for proposals to planning and environmental services firms to
establish a list of “ on call” consultants to assist with priority projects.
i. Prepared a revised Grading Ordinance
j. Created a Code Enforcement and Vehicle Abatement Hearing Officer position
k. Established a tracking system by which all permit applications will be monitored
by staff to identify and reduce delays in the permit process
l. Implemented a Building Information Counter Log where by all planning related
calls received will be returned on the same day or the day after.
6. The 2004 General Plan provides for long range direction and policy for the use of land
within the County ( El Dorado Forest comprises 57% of the County’s land base). The
General Plan relies upon measures identified in each element that implements the
policies. Modification of the measures requires amendment of the General Plan. There
are nine elements in the General Plan ( land; transportation; housing; public services and
37
utilities; health, safety and noise element; conservation and open space; agriculture and
forestry; parks and recreation; and economic development). The land use element alone
has 15 measures, many of them with multiple implementation requirements and a
significant number of them have a one to two year implementation timetable.
7. Each year the 2,000 to 3,000 permit applications filed require a full plan check. During
the Plan Check process the plans are reviewed by building inspectors, planners and/ or
engineers ( otherwise known as plan checkers) depending on the size and complexity of
the project. The plans are reviewed for consistency with planning, grading and building
ordinances and codes. Under the new General Plan, any structure over 120 square feet
must be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan.
8. The Planning Division currently has one Principal Planner assigned to General Plan
implementation. In addition, there are one Principal Planner, four Senior Planners and six
Assistant Planners assigned to current planning functions and one Principal Planner
assigned to special projects. Tentative maps, parcel maps and subdivision maps have not
been done by the department in six years and there is no one in the staff, with few
exceptions, that know how to do it. The majority of the planning staff has been on board
for two years or less. Several amendments to the Zoning Code have created interpretation
conflicts. Agricultural setbacks have become confusing. The review and update of the
Design Standards Manual, adopted in 1986 and last amended in 1990, is a top priority
under the General Plan and no one has been assigned to that project.
9. Management staff has indicated that they could keep five Planners occupied fulltime for
the next five years implementing the General Plan.
10. The department has been unsuccessful in filling four vacancies at the Senior and
Principal Planner classifications, and three at the Senior Engineer level. The latter three
are needed in the in the Building Division; one in grading plan review and two in plan
check. Management indicates that salary and retirement benefits are not competitive with
surrounding jurisdictions. Top management believes that a 15% salary increase would be
more competitive as well as changes in retirement benefits ( employees picking up the
additional cost).
11. On April 25, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved three new recruitment tools to
entice new employees: a five percent increase in salary for Senior Planners and Civil
Engineers, a six thousand dollar signing bonus for “ hard to recruit” classifications, and up
to five thousand dollar moving allowance with a two year minimum stay on the job if the
new employee takes the moving allowance.
12. 180 building inspections are conducted each work day by approximately 25 inspectors.
The Development Services Department is mandated by law to enforce minimum
construction and equipment standards and codes to protect life, limb, health, property and
public welfare. The inspector’s responsibilities do not include review of quality of
workmanship by the contractor. The majority of the Inspectors are hired at the II level.
Senior Building Inspectors are assigned to non - residential projects. Building Inspectors
38
are rotated every 6 months. Employees are required to have a minimum of one
certification ( building inspection) but they perform all types of inspections including,
electrical, mechanical and plumbing. Time of inspections varies from 15 minutes to 45
depending on the type of inspection ( foundation and framing taking longer).
13. Under California Government Code 818.6, the County itself is immune from liability not
only for negligence in failing to make an inspection but for negligence in the inspection
itself.
14. In 1999 there were 15 people assigned to the Building Department Customer Counter in
the Placerville location, including staff members from the Planning, Environmental
Management ( EM) and Transportation ( DOT) departments. That number has been
reduced to five with no representation from either Environmental Management or DOT.
15. In 2005 $ 150,000 in contract planning services were spent to expedite plan check review,
priority been given to employment generated commercial projects.
16. The Department is requesting an allocation of $ 1 million in the 2006- 07 budget for
contract planning services for General Plan implementation. Management expects that
this amount will cover implementation of some measures, such as floor area ratio, Option
B under tree canopy retention and upgrade and construction work on Missouri Flat Road.
17. By state law the Department cannot profit from the building fees that it charges. Without
any additional monies from the General Fund, the Department must raise fees to fund
new positions.
18. In the 2005- 2006 budget, the department identified several key issues to work on such as:
a. The relocation of the Courts from the main floor of Building C to allow full
implementation of the Placerville Permit Center with permit service participation
from the Departments of Transportation ( DOT) and Environmental Management.
b. The commercial grading function currently with DOT to transfer to Development
Services in July, 2005.
c. Reducing plan review times to 30 days or less on a consistent basis since the
times had reached seven weeks due to high activity levels. The department stated
that with the lifting of the writ and continued build- out of approved projects in El
Dorado Hills, it expected an increase in development activity with a
commensurate increase on both plan check and building inspection services.
None of the above identified key issues have been implemented as of the writing of this
report ( May, 2006).
19. Management has indicated that it does not plan to ask the Board of Supervisors to fund its
full allocation of positions beyond the key Planners and Engineer’s positions because the
current workload does not justify it.
Findings/ Recommendations
39
1F. Finding: High expectations have been placed on the department top management by the
Board of Supervisors, the building community at large and the residents of the county to
complete the merger, implement the County General Plan, eliminate the backlog of all cases and
continue to process new projects and permits, all in a timely basis. Even though the new Director
has made many positive changes in such a short period of time, the fact is that the department
does not have sufficient personnel, neither in the Planning Services Division nor in the Permit
Centers, to accomplish all that it’s been requested to do without significant and unpopular delays.
Discretionary projects are currently taking 6- 9 months to get ready before going to public
hearing. Instead of spending $ 1 million in outside planning services, the County could hire three
Senior Planners at a cost of $ 300- 350,000, saving the County between $ 700,000 and $ 650,000.
Unfilled vacancies causes delays in the processing of construction projects further increasing
building costs to the County.
1R. Recommendation: The hiring and retention of new employees in the Senior Planner
and Engineer classifications must be monitored closely and further changes in
compensation shall be explored if current salary and benefits do not produced desired
results.
2Fa. Finding: Departmental staff has set a standard of issuing single family dwelling permits
within four weeks and express plan check permits ( pools, garages, decks, etc.) over the counter
on the same day, but that is not the norm. The lack of sufficient plan checkers is causing delays
of up to eight weeks and three weeks, respectively. Many builders and homeowners choose the
third party plan check option, at an additional cost, to minimize delays.
2Fb. Finding: Additionally, because all structures over 120 square feet have to be reviewed for
consistency with the General Plan, the consistency standards being applied to single dwelling
residences and other ministerial projects are those established for discretionary projects, creating
further delays.
2Ra. Recommendation: Develop new General Plan consistency standards for single
family dwellings and other ministerial projects in order to reduce the time in issuing
permits.
2Rb. Recommendation: Hire additional plan checkers, in the applicable classifications,
to insure the 30 day or less plan review time for residential permits and one day for
express plan check permits.
3F. Finding: The merger of the two departments ( Planning and Building) into the new
Development Services Department has resulted in the hiring of new personnel and the
reassignment of some existing employees. Implementation of the General Plan and revision of
codes and ordinances continue to generate regular changes that staff must assimilate in order to
provide accurate information to the public. In some cases, this has resulted in wrong information
being issued and different information being provided by different staff members. This causes
frustration and costly changes on the part of the public and results in negative publicity for the
department. Furthermore, applicants still need to go to other departments ( Department of
40
Transportation and Environmental Management) after receiving their permit to seek their
respective approval.
3Ra. Recommendation: The regular weekly meetings being held by the Director with
other top management should be held on an ongoing basis. These meetings are designed
to insure consistency in the interpretation of the General Plan, codes and ordinances.
Additionally, the assignment of one Principal Planner to the Permit Centers as a central
point to answer difficult planning questions for non- discretionary projects is a step in the
right direction.
3Rb. Recommendation: Expand the length and/ or frequency of the one- hour weekly
training sessions held for the Development Technicians and other counter personnel to
insure consistency in the dissemination of information.
3Rc. Recommendation: Efforts to move the Courts out of the Placerville office should
be expedited so Development Services can complete its plans to absorb the other building
and planning related functions of Department of Transportation and Environmental
Management such as transportation planning, commercial grading permits sewer, wells,
septic, demolition and waste recycle.
3Rd. Recommendation: Institute an inside Learning Academy to provide a structured
training program in both technical and customer oriented areas.
4F. Finding: The Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC) comprised of representatives from
various departments ( DS, Environmental Health, DOT) is used by the Planning staff to review all
discretionary projects with each applicant. TAC meetings are scheduled for Monday afternoons
to review pending projects. The problems with TAC are numerous: the departments do not
provide their input in a timely manner; department representatives either don’t show up or send a
different representative to each meeting; the representatives have no authority to speak for the
department thereby resulting in multiple and costly changes for the applicant; Planning lacks the
authority to require other department’s attendance; decisions communicated over the phone lack
documentation; and there is no designated Chairman. Often outside agencies, such as EID and
fire districts, do not provide input on a timely fashion. And sometimes, the Planning Services
Division fails to contact affected agencies ( both outside and inside agencies, such as the
Agricultural Commission) and issues permits without the proper authorization. Again, delays
result in frustrated customers, agencies and increase costs to the applicants.
4R. Recommendation: Departmental representatives assigned to TAC must have the
authority to speak for the department. All changes requested from the applicants must be
put in writing and signed by all affected departments and outside agencies. Additional
changes should not be permitted except for extraordinary circumstances.
5F. Finding: The Department lacks comprehensive performance standards by which they can
measure customer satisfaction. As an example, the staff assigned to the Current Planning unit has
a 30 day limit for internal review of projects and distribution of plans to other affected agencies
( i. e. EM, DOT, school district, fire district, etc.). Beyond the 30 day limit, there is no other
41
performance standard that addresses work completion. The department has a Customer Service
Questionnaire that is found on their website but it is not found in all their Permit Center counters.
If available and completed at the counter, the department is only measuring customer satisfaction
for services performed in only one small segment of the process.
5Ra. Recommendation: Develop appropriate and specific performance standards for
each division to gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness.
Revise existing Customer Service Questionnaire to reflect new performance standards.
5Rb. Recommendation: Enclose a Customer Service Questionnaire with the issuance of
all aspects of the permit review and issuance process.
5Rc. Recommendation: Make Questionnaires available in visible locations at all Permit
Centers.
5Rd. Recommendation: Questionnaires and return envelopes should be handed out to
the contractor or owner/ builder after final inspection.
5Re. Recommendation: Questionnaires should be reviewed and discussed on a regular
basis by the Department Director and other top managers.
6F. Finding: The Department processes requests for building inspections on a timely basis.
However, there is a departmental attitude toward the role of the Building inspectors as “ just spot
checkers” that conveys superficial and unsafe inspections and makes homeowners, contractors and
builders question the purpose of the inspections. Furthermore, some Building Inspectors have
provided wrong information related to building code requirements and have had to be corrected by
the contractor. Some of these inspectors were training junior inspectors which further exacerbate
the problem.
6Ra. Recommendation: Top management needs to change its attitude as to the role of
Building Inspectors and educate the employees and the public as to the seriousness of the
inspections.
6Rb. Recommendation: Assign a Senior Building Inspector to provide periodic in- house
training for all inspectors to insure current and consistent application of building codes.
7F. Finding: The website needs revisions to make it more user friendly.
7Ra. Recommendation: Include an organizational chart of the department with names,
telephones numbers and fax numbers of key contacts.
7Rb. Recommendation: Include a statement on the mission and vision of the department
to inform the user of the department’s responsibilities.
7Rc. Recommendation: Make it a top priority for the public to be able to get a permit and
pay fees on line.
42
8F. Finding: The Planning Commission meets twice a month during daytime hours. Sometimes
agenda items are rescheduled due to additional requests of information by either commissioners,
departments and/ or the public. This results in wasted time and frustration on the part of the
applicants.
8Ra. Recommendation: Management agrees that it needs to work closer with the
Commission in anticipating their needs. Periodic workshops between county staff and
Commissioners should be held to better define the role of the Commission.
8Rb. Recommendation: Standardize as much as possible the review process for
discretionary projects so as to preclude “ re- inventing the wheel” with every project.
8Rc. Recommendation: Timely and written responses by affected departments and outside
agencies should be required to expedite the review process.
8Rd. Recommendation: Planning Commission should meet during evening hours, such as
once a quarter, to obtain additional public input as it pertains to the implementation of the
County General Plan, code and ordinance changes and other land use policies. The value of
the additional public input surpasses that of any overtime payment required for county staff
( only the clerical staff would be subject to overtime payment).
9F. Finding: The Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals in the community
( developers, builders, contractors, members of trade organizations, etc.), who would speak to the
Grand Jury as to their experiences for fear of future retaliation by DS planning and building staff.
A number of them expressed concern as to the hiring of personnel who, according to them, came
from slow growth or no- growth counties and were applying their individual interpretation to the
new General Plan. Those who came forward stated that they have chosen not to speak out in the
past because their livelihood depend on keeping on good terms with departmental staff so that their
building and planning projects are processed in a timely manner. Their experiences were specific to
the new department and did not involve any other county department.
9Ra. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for the
implementation of the General Plan by providing leadership and direction to all parties
involved. The Board should it make very clear to all departmental personnel that any
retaliation by any employee against a customer will not be tolerated, and he/ she will be
subject to disciplinary action.
9Rb. Recommendation: The Department should convene the Building Industry Advisory
Committee ( BIAC), whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on a more
regular basis, quarterly or as needed, to seek input not just on building matters but also on
planning issues.
9Rc. Recommendation: The Department should hold periodic workshops with professional
and trade organizations and the public at large to seek public input on issues of interest before
they are acted upon by departmental staff
43
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of Contents,
“ Notice to Respondents.”
44
EL DORADO COUNTY
Grand Jury
2005- 2006 Mid- Year Report
January 4, 2006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EL DORADO COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 472
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667
GRAND JURY
Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477
e- mail: gand. iwvliaco. eldorado~
FAX: 530- 295- 0763
January 4,2006
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Placerville Office
Rusty Dupray, Supervisor, District I
Helen K. Baurnann, Supervisor, District I1
James R. " Jack" Sweeney, Supervisor, District I11
Charlie Paine, Supervisor, District IV
Norma Santiago, Supervisor, District V
Dear Members of the Board,
The 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury is releasing an interim report detailing an audit into
SB- 163 as administered by the county department of Mental Health. Upon conclusion of
the audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, the grand jury has approved the
attached conclusions and recommendations. An investigation was originally initiated by
last year's grand jury and only recently completed.
This grand jury takes this report and the attached audit seriously. I would also like to
acknowledge the cooperation of the county employees, the department of Mental
Health, and the H. M.- ROS~ A ccountancy Corporation. - ;. -
;? - e ..&
We look forward to the continued cooperation between the Grand Jury, the Board of
Supervisors, the office of the Chief Administrator and the Mental Health Department.
Respectfully,
Douglas Clough, Foreman
2005- 2006 County Grand Jury
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EL DORADO COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 472
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667
January 4,2006
Honorable Douglas C. Phimister
Superior Court
2850 Fairlane Court Placervil le,
CA 95667
Judge Phimister,
GRAND JURY
Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477
e- mail: grand. iu~@ co~ eldorado. ca. us
FAX: 530- 295- 0763
The members of the 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury have decided to release an interim
report detailing an investigation into the county department of Mental Health. Upon
conclusion of the investigation and an independent audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy
Corporation, the grand jury has made the attached findings and recommendations. This
investigation was originally reported to last year's grand jury that was unable to conduct
an inquiry due to time constraints. The grand jury has made specific findings and
recommendations in accordance with the California Penal Code.
The grand jury takes its responsibility seriously and we look forward to completing the
term in a professional manner. I would also like to acknowledge the county employees,
the department of Mental Health, and the H. M Rose Accountancy Corporation for
assisting us with this investigation
Respectfully,
Douglas Clough, Foreman
2005- 2006 County Grand Jury
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:
How to Respond to Findings
The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:
1. That you agree with the finding.
2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall
specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons for the disagreement.
How to Respond to Recommendations
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report
action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this
manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe
not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the
officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond
Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different
response times and to whom you must respond:
1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety
( 90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are
required to respond must do so within sixty ( 60) days to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.
Mental Health Audit Report
GJ05- 001
Background
While the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury was investigating a complaint it became aware of issues
with the SB- 163 program, also known as the “ Wraparound Program”, that required
further examination and investigation. The analysis included program implementation,
fiscal records and tracking procedures within the Mental Health department. The Grand
Jury hired an outside auditor that specializes in county and state agency audits, the
Harvey M. Rose ( HMR) Accountancy Corporation. The Harvey M. Rose firm agreed to
do a financial audit of the SB- 163 program, which is administered by Mental Health. This
audit started in June of 2005 and was completed in November of 2005, with the final
report submitted in December of 2005.
Findings
The Grand Jury has accepted the Final Report of the audit of the El Dorado County SB-
163 program. The Grand Jury adopts the Report’s conclusions as its findings. The Grand
Jury also wholly agree with the findings ( conclusions) and recommendations thereof ( see
exhibit A). These findings ( conclusions) and recommendations have also been reviewed
and approved by the presiding judge of the El Dorado County Grand Jury. The Report’s
recommendations are itemized as follows:
Recommendations
1. Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the
Multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised of, at
minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health and
Probation.
2. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of overseeing
the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and objectives,
determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as part of the
County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving and reviewing
regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and cost effectiveness,
and making adjustments to program operations when needed.
3. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the
Wraparound program.
4. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost
effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors, to
include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s meeting
records; achievement of program goals; staff training records; accessibility of the
program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by participating families.
5. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the County
Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and providing
services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not assigned to
authorized service allocation slots.
6. Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the program
plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in children’s
services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made regarding
expenditure of such funds.
7. Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program Memorandum of
Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental Health, Human Services
and Probation to replace the MOU among these departments that expired in
September 2005.
8. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue and
expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be served, slots
to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating children served
and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back to the Board within
six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make the budget more realistic.
9. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual
revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions about
the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary nonrevenue
generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.
10. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly
monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served for
comparison to the budget.
11. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound
program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget
document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and previous
year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating children
program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service hours and
expenditures for unique external goods and services.
12. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately
$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board of
Supervisors for review.
13. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its annual
program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the number of
children referred to and considered for the program; the number and backgrounds of
those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation slots; and, the
number and backgrounds of those receiving services with Wraparound funding but
not assigned to service allocation slots.
14. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written
procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services
with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
15. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual
estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a base
line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater consistency
between service plans and service provider availability.
This Grand Jury report must be responded to by the Board of Supervisors within ninety
( 90) days as directed by the Penal Code 933.05 ( b) ( 2) and ( 3).
Exhibit
A
Audit of Claiming and Financial and other Reporting
for the
Wraparound Program of El Dorado County
Prepared for:
The FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury
Prepared by:
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
December, 2005
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary................................................................................. i
Introduction............................................................................................ 1
1. Wraparound program overview & glossary of terms................................. 3
2. Compliance with Wraparound program requirements ............................... 6
3. Wraparound program fiscal management ............................................... 19
4. Wraparound program records................................................................ 29
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
i
Executive Summary
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2004- 05 and FY
2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit of El Dorado
County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for Wraparound, or S. B.
163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by the County
Departments of Mental Health and Human Services.
A summary of the findings and recommendations contained in this audit report are as
follows. The recommendations are numbered according to their respective section in this
report.
A summary of the first section of the report is not presented here as it is an overview of
the County’s Wraparound program and does not contain findings or recommendations.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound Program Requirements
􀂉 Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to flexibly use
State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group home placements
to provide individualized services to prevent at risk children from being
placed in group homes. In El Dorado County, funding is obtained from the
State by the Department of Human Services, combined with County funds and
transferred to the Department of Mental Health which administers the
program.
􀂉 The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance
documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Human Services and Mental
Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the absence of an executive
management team assuming responsibility for planning and monitoring
program performance and a lack of procedures to ensure family understanding
of and input to the program. Among other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound
program management structure has resulted in under- expending available
program funds, lower service levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every
year of the program.
􀂉 State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services
designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children. State
funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each month. The
County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded program participation
by including children at risk of group home placement in addition to those in
the authorized service allocation slots. Services for these other children are
provided with funds not spent on the children in the authorized slots. The
methods for determining eligibility and expenditure levels for these additional
children have not been documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any
other Department documents.
Executive Summary
􀂉 A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in the
Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of such savings
has not been established nor has a process for the two departments to
determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result, approximately
$ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the last three year fiscal
years that could have been reinvested in other services for children.
Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should:
2.1 Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the
multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised
of, at minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental
Health and Probation.
2.2 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of
overseeing the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and
objectives, determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as
part of the County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving
and reviewing regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and
cost effectiveness, and making adjustments to program operations when needed.
2.3 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the
Wraparound program.
2.4 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost
effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors,
to include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s
meeting records; achievement of program goals; staff training records;
accessibility of the program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by
participating families.
2.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the
County Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and
providing services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not
assigned to authorized service allocation slots.
2.6 Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the
program plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in
children’s services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made
regarding expenditure of such funds.
2.7 Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program
Memorandum of Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
ii
Executive Summary
Health, Human Services and Probation to replace the MOU among these
departments that expired in September 2005.
Section 3: Wraparound Program Fiscal Management
􀂉 State and local funding is provided to the County’s Wraparound program based
on the number of “ service allocation slots” filled by children participating in the
program. Between its inception in August 2002 and June 2005, the County
authorized six service allocation slots per month but filled an average of only 4.8.
As a result, the County did not collect an estimated $ 182,484 in available program
funding that would have enabled services to an additional 18.7 children.
􀂉 In addition to under- recovered available revenue, program expenditures were
approximately $ 173,244 less than actual funding received during the three fiscal
years reviewed. These unspent funds have been carried over each year and are
still available for the program, but reflect lower service levels for program
participants and unnecessary encumbrance of County General Fund monies
during the review period. Combined with the $ 182,484 in funds not recovered due
to unfilled service allocation slots, the County did not provide $ 355,728 worth of
Wraparound services that could have been provided during the three fiscal years
reviewed.
􀂉 During the three years reviewed, actual Wraparound program revenues were
$ 327,938 less than budgeted revenues and actual program expenditures were
$ 628,547 less than budgeted. These substantial variances reflect a lack of program
planning and oversight by Mental Health and Human Services Department
executive management.
􀂉 Total reported Department of Mental Health salary and benefits costs for
Wraparound were only $ 4,775 and $ 10,912 the first two years of the program,
respectively, but increased to $ 304,547 in FY 2004- 05. Department of Mental
Health staff report that staff time sheet and billing records did not capture all staff
time dedicated to the program in its first two fiscal years. If actual staff costs were
higher than the amounts charged to program funds, those program costs were
covered by other Department funding sources, inappropriately curtailing other
services.
􀂉 Though encouraged by the Wraparound program concept, only $ 9,307, or 1.5
percent of total program expenditures during the three fiscal years reviewed, have
been spent on unique goods and services jointly identified by program
participants, their families and County staff as being in the best interests of the
child. Most of the program funding has been used for traditional County staff-provided
services.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
iii
Executive Summary
Recommendations
Based on the findings presented in this section, it is recommended that the El Dorado
County Board of Supervisors:
3.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue
and expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be
served, slots to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating
children served and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back
to the Board within six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make
the budget more realistic.
3.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual
revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions
about the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary non-revenue
generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.
3.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly
monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served
for comparison to the budget.
3.4 Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound
program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget
document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and
previous year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating
children program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service
hours and expenditures for unique external goods and services.
3.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately
$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board
for review.
Section 4: Wraparound Program Records
􀂉 Claims for State Wraparound funding are filed by the Department of Human
Services each month as part of its larger claim for Foster Care funding. A
review of Department records showed that there is sufficient supporting
documentation for the Wraparound program claims filed between FY 2002-
03 and 2004- 05.
􀂉 The Department of Mental Health’s Wraparound program accounting,
timesheet and other records do not provide sufficient information to
determine if program funding has been properly accounted for since the
program’s inception. A new record- keeping system implemented in
February 2005 has improved this situation but since it was not in place for
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
iv
Executive Summary
the first two and a half years of the program, it is not possible to accurately
determine actual program costs during that time or the source of funding for
all services provided.
􀂉 A review of Department of Mental Health time sheets and contractor
billings for four randomly selected months showed that actual staff hours
and costs were higher than recorded in the Department’s financial records.
Time and cost records were not compiled or reviewed by program managers
prior to February 2005 to ensure that program funding was appropriately
used and accounted for.
􀂉 Program records are maintained reporting the number of children assigned
to service allocation slots but there is no documentation of the number of
children considered for Wraparound service allocation slots who were not
accepted in to the program. There is no documentation at all of the number
of other at risk children considered for and accepted in to the program who
are not assigned to service allocation slots. Such information should be
recorded to document that all children in the program meet the eligibility
criteria and to determine if adjustments are needed to the number of service
allocation slots authorized by the County.
􀂉 A review of treatment plans and time sheets for four randomly selected
months showed variances between services planned for children in the
program and what was actually delivered. While there may be valid reasons
to divert from original treatment plans as a child’s situation changes, a
comparison of planned to actual staff and contractor hours and services
should be regularly prepared to ensure that program resources are being
allocated effectively.
Recommendations
Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
4.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its
annual program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the
number of children referred to and considered for the program; the number and
backgrounds of those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation
slots; and, the number and backgrounds of those receiving services with
Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
4.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written
procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services
with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
4.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual
estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a
base line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater
consistency between service plans and service provider availability.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
v
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
1
Introduction
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the Fiscal Year ( FY)
2004- 05 and FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit
of El Dorado County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for
Wraparound, or S. B. 163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by
the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services. The objectives of the
audit were to determine:
· Whether the County’s Departments of Human Services and Mental Health maintain
appropriate records to demonstrate service levels and properly record costs of the
County's SB 163 Wraparound Program and any other related federal and State grant
programs administered by the two departments;
· Whether appropriate internal controls have been established and are followed by the
two departments to ensure that federal and State grant funds are expended for
intended purposes;
· Whether generally accepted cost accounting methodologies are followed by the two
departments when determining program costs related to these and other federal and
State funded programs; and,
· Whether excess reserves or surplus funds have accumulated, or if all funding
available has been made available to support services for program recipients.
While the initial focus of the audit was all federal and State- funded programs
administered by the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services, the
Wraparound program was identified during the field work phase of the audit as the most
relevant program for review. The other program that was reviewed was the Supportive
and Therapeutic Options Program ( STOP), a State funded program that provides mental
health related day treatment and aftercare services to families with children at risk of out-of-
home placement and those exiting foster care. Because of the small amount of
program funding and expenditures ( actual expenditures were reportedly $ 28,678 for FY
2004- 05 as of July 7, 2005) relative to the Wraparound program, limited audit hours were
redirected to an analysis of the latter program after a review of key STOP program
documents.
Audit Methods
Methods used to conduct this audit included the following:
q Interviews with directors, relevant managers and key staff at the Department of
Human Services and the Department of Mental Health
Introduction
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
2
q Review of key program documents including enabling State legislation, the County’s
Wraparound plan and Memoranda of Understanding between all departments
involved in the program.
q Analysis of Wraparound program financial information and documents including
budget and revenue/ expenditure documents from the County’s financial system,
Department of Human Services foster care claim records and supporting
documentation, Wraparound program special fund General Ledger reports and journal
entry documentation.
q Review of written procedures regarding program eligibility and intake.
q Analysis of program participant rosters for each month that the program has been in
effect through June 2005.
q Review and analysis of Department of Mental Health case files, treatment plans and
billing records for a sample of children in the Wraparound program.
q Review of a sample of case files and outcome documentation.
q Review of minutes from Cross- Systems Operations Team and Placement- Referral
sub- committee minutes between August 2002 and June 2005.
q Review of literature on the Wraparound program.
q Review of County documentation on County’s Supportive and Therapeutic Options
Program ( STOP) program.
Field work was conducted between June and October, 2005. A draft audit report was
prepared with the results presented in three areas of findings and recommendations. The
draft report was provided to the Grand Jury and the directors of the Human Services and
Mental Health departments for their review and comments and an exit conference
meeting took place with the directors and other representatives of the departments before
the report was finalized and submitted to the Grand Jury in December 2005. This audit
was prepared in compliance with the work program submitted to and approved by the FY
2004- 05 El Dorado County Grand Jury in June 2005.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
3
1. Wraparound program overview and glossary of
terms
The Wraparound program was created by State legislation adopted in 1997 that allowed
California counties to use State foster care and Adoption Assistance funds in a flexible
manner to provide eligible youth with services as an alternative to group home care. The
program was originally designed for youths who are residing, or are at risk of being
placed, in group homes licensed at Rate Classification Levels 12- 141, the most costly out-of-
home facilities designed for youths with severe emotional disturbances. Under the
Wraparound program, qualified youth are provided with intensive, individualized family-based
services designed to keep them with their families, or to return them to their
families if they are already in an out- of- home placement. Services can be provided,
according to the State legislation, to youths living with their birth parents, relatives,
adoptive parents, licensed or certified foster parents, or guardians.
Funding for the program consists of State funding at the same rate as would be provided
for group home placements, which vary based on each participant’s Rate Classification
Level. The County is required to match the State funds provided at the rate of 60 percent
of the total cost. The funds are provided to the County’s welfare department ( Department
of Human Services in El Dorado County) which may enter into interagency agreements
with other County departments for the provision of wraparound services.
State law requires participating counties, at their option, to develop a plan for wraparound
services and monitor the provision of those services consistent with the plan. The plan, to
be submitted to the State Department of Social Services for informational purposes, is to
include:
q A process and protocol for reviewing and determining eligibility for the program
q Processes for developing, modifying and denying individualized services plans
for each youth participant
q A process for parent support, mentoring, and advocacy to ensure parent
understanding and participation in the program
q A planning and review process to support and facilitate the following program
principles:
o Focus on individual child through individualized service plans
o Providing services geared to enabling the participants to remain in the
least restrictive, most family- like settings possible
o Developing a close and collaborative relationship with the family
o Conducting a thorough, strengths- based assessment of each child and
family that serves as the basis of the individualized service plan
o Designing and delivering services that incorporate the religious customs,
and regional, racial, and ethnic values of the youths and families served
o Measuring consumer satisfaction to assess outcomes
1 See Glossary at the end of this section for definition of Rate Classification Level.
Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
4
q Written interagency agreements or memorandum of understanding between the
county departments of social services, mental health and probation that specify
jointly provided or integrated services, staff tasks and responsibilities, budget
considerations and related matters.
The statute also requires that each county evaluate its program to determine it cost and
effectiveness of outcomes. Each county is to ensure that staff participating in the project
has completed training provided or approved by the California Department of Social
Services.
The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot project to be concluded by
October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20002, expanded the definition of
eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing in a group home at RCL 10
or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the initial legislation was repealed
indefinitely, according to the California Department of Social Services3. Other than these
changes, most of the other program definitions remained the same.
Details on El Dorado County’s implementation of the Wraparound program are presented
in the next three sections of this report.
Glossary of terms used in this report
Client Goods and Services: A classification of expenditures used in this report for
Department of Mental Health expenditures for non- departmental
goods and services provided to children participants and their
families such as lessons for the children or transportation
services for families. Such services are identified by the child,
the child’s family and other members of his or her support team
usually through Wraparound program interactions facilitated by
County staff or contractor.
Eligible child: A child who is any of the following: 1) a child adjudicated as
either a dependent or ward of the juvenile court pursuant to
[ Welfare Institutions Code] Section 300, 601 or 602 and who
would be placed in a group home licensed by the department at a
Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher; 2) a child who would
be voluntarily placed in out- of- home care pursuant to Section
7572.5 of the Government Code; or, 3) a child who is currently,
or who would be, placed in a group home licensed by the
department at a Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher.
Group home: An alternative to traditional in- home foster care for children, in
which children are housed in a home- like setting with a number
of unrelated children who stay for varying periods of time. The
2 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter
259, Statutes of 2000.
3 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a
representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.
Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
5
children are supervised by a combination of house parents and/ or
staff. More specialized therapeutic or treatment group homes
have specially- trained staff to assist children with emotional and
behavioral difficulties. The make- up and staffing of the group
home can be adapted to meet the unique needs of its residents.
Program participant: Term used in this report for a child that has been assigned by the
County to the program either in a service allocation slot or
without one.
Rate Classification Level ( RCL):
A standardized classification system for children in placement
that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and
determines the type of facility and services they need.
S. B. 163: The original State legislation that authorized the first version of
the Wraparound program.
Service allocation slot: Defined in State Wraparound program law as a specified amount
of funds available to the county to pay for an individualized
intensive wraparound services package for an eligible child. A
service allocation slot may be used for more than one child on a
successive basis. [ California Welfare & Institutions Code 18251]
Support Team: A term used in this report to represent the family members and
others who comprise the team that provides and organizes
services for a Wraparound program participant child. Generally,
these teams meet regularly with a County or contract facilitator
and the child to monitor progress and plan and organize services.
Wraparound: Individualized family- based services provided as an alternative
to group home care. Services are “ wrapped around” a child
living with his or her birth parents, relatives, foster parents,
adoptive parents or guardians. Services emphasize the strengths
of the child and family and includes the delivery of coordinated
and highly individualized services to address the child’s needs
and to achieve positive outcomes.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
6
2. Compliance with Wraparound program
requirements
q Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to
flexibly use State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group
home placements to provide individualized services to prevent at risk
children from being placed in group homes. In El Dorado County,
funding is obtained from the State by the Department of Human Services,
combined with County funds and transferred to the Department of
Mental Health which administers the program.
q The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance
documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the
absence of an executive management team assuming responsibility for
planning and monitoring program performance and a lack of procedures
to ensure family understanding of and input to the program. Among
other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound program management structure
has resulted in under- expending available program funds, lower service
levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every year of the program.
q State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services
designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children.
State funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each
month. The County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded
program participation by including children at risk of group home
placement in addition to those in the authorized service allocation slots.
Services for these other children are provided with funds not spent on the
children in the authorized slots. The methods for determining eligibility
and expenditure levels for these additional children have not been
documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any other Department
documents.
q A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in
the Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of
such savings has not been established nor has a process for the two
departments to determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result,
approximately $ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the
last three year fiscal years that could have been reinvested in other
services for children.
The key documents governing the Wraparound program are: 1) State legislation
authorizing the program; 2) the County’s Wraparound program plan; and, 3) two
Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs) between the departments involved in the
programs, setting forth the roles and responsibilities of each. A review of the
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
7
requirements of these documents compared to actual program activity reveals that many
of the requirements have not been met.
State funding for the Wraparound program is claimed by and transmitted to the County
Department of Human Services as part of the County foster care program. The
Department of Mental Health provides direct services or arranges for contract services for
the children in the program. Participants are referred to the program by the Department of
Human Services- Child Protective Services division, the Department of Mental Health,
County schools and the Probation Department.
State legislation
There are two State statutes governing the Wraparound program. The first, adopted in
19971, allows each county to participate in the program and provide children with service
alternatives to placement in group homes. This legislation enables participating counties
to obtain State funding that would otherwise be provided for group home placement costs
and use it, in conjunction with a mandatory County contribution, for flexibly defined
family- based services provided to eligible children at risk of group home placement.
The original legislation defines eligibility for the program as children who are either
wards of the juvenile court or dependents and who would be placed in a group home with
a license for treating children classified at Rate Classification Level ( RCL) 12 or above 2.
Wraparound services are defined in the legislation as,
“ community- based intervention services that emphasize the strengths of the child and family and
includes the delivery of coordinated, highly individualized unconditional services to address needs
and achieve positive outcomes in their lives.”
The program is optional for counties but the legislation requires that any county that
chooses to participate has to develop a plan for Wraparound services and has to monitor
the provision of such services. The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot
project to be concluded by October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20003,
expanded the definition of eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing
in a group home at RCL 10 or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the
initial legislation was repealed indefinitely, according to the California Department of
Social Services4. Other than these changes, most of the other program definitions
remained the same.
1 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18250- 18257, adopted as Senate Bill 163, Chapter 795, Statutes
of 1997.
2 Rate Classification Levels, or RCLs, are a standardized classification system for children in placement
that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and determines the type of facility and services
they need.
3 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter
259, Statutes of 2000.
4 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a
representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
8
Some of the key requirements of State Wraparound legislation and El Dorado’s
compliance, are summarized in Chart 2.1 below.
Chart 2.1 shows that El Dorado County has complied with some but not all of the
requirements of State law governing the Wraparound program. A program plan is in
place and protocols have been established governing referrals and eligibility for six
County authorized service allocation slots, meaning that six children at risk of group
home placement can be officially enrolled in the program at any one time and the State
will provide its share of what would be the cost of placement in a group home for these
children. Formalized processes for monitoring the program’s accessibility to the target
population and for ensuring parent understanding of and involvement in the program are
not in place.
Treatment plans are prepared for every child in the program by the Department of Mental
Health but they are not different than treatment plans for other children served. They do
not specifically address family strengths or indicate what the family wants for the child.
An interagency Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the County
Departments of Mental Health, Human Services, Probation and Public Health and the
County Office of Education was executed in 2001 outlining program services and the
roles and responsibilities of each agency. That MOU expired in September 2005. A
separate MOU between the Departments of Mental Health and Social Services only was
executed in February 2005 covering the roles and responsibilities and financial
relationships of these two departments.
An evaluation of the program’s treatment and cost effectiveness was prepared by the
Department of Mental Health in 2000. While it presented information on some program
successes, it did not include actual program cost data and reported that half of the
children in the service allocation slots did end up in group home placements. Ideally, the
evaluation would have included an assessment of why these cases were not successful
and suggestions for decreasing the number of children in the program who are placed in
group homes.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
9
Chart 2.1
El Dorado County’s Compliance with Key
Requirements of State Wraparound Legislation
State requirement Implemented Not implemented
1 County must develop a Wraparound
services plan to be eligible for
program funding.
County adopted a comprehensive
Wraparound plan, submitted to
the State in March 2000.
2 County must develop a protocol for
reviewing eligibility of children and
families in program and for
monitoring accessibility and
availability of services to the target
population.
Partial: County has a protocol for
reviewing eligibility of children
assigned to service allocatio

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

EL DORADO COUNTY
2005 - 2006
GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
June 30, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter to Judge Phimister
Letter from the Honorable Judge Phimister
Grand Jury Members
Notice to Respondents
REPORTS
COMMENDATION REPORT INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT ................... 1
REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT......................................... 3
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT HIRING PROCESS................................................................ 5
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM ............................... 7
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING.......................................................................... 11
EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY...................................................................................... 15
EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS ........................................................................... 19
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING .................................................................................. 21
Internal Investigation
COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE ............................................................................. 25
Internal Investigation
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES ........................................................................................... 33
PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED 2005- 2006 REPORTS
Mid- Year Report, January 4, 2006, and Board of Supervisor’s Responses
GJ05- 027 Mid- Term Report, May 9, 2006
GRAND JURY MEMBERS 2005- 2006
Doug Clough, Foreman 07/ 01/ 05 - 05/ 11/ 06
Donald R. Brooks, Foreman 05/ 12/ 06 - 06/ 30/ 06
Iris K. Capriola
Rita Clayton
Peri Curry
Mary Ann Dante
Fran DelGizzi
Van Dossey
Fredrick ( Fritz) Engel
Michael J. Johnson
Floyd Knapp
Lorrainne McLaughlin
Michael Powell
Ivonne Ramos Richardson
Teresa Stapleton
Loren Theodore
Rene ( Ray) Van Asten
Harlan J. Yelland
Former Members:
Michael Crowley
Karen Eller
Colleen Young 07/ 01/ 05 – 03/ 31/ 06
Grand Jury Recording Secretary as of 04/ 01/ 06:
Colleen Young
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
Penal Code Section 933.05. Responses to findings
( a) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the
responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
( 1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
( 2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which
case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed
and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore.
( b) For purposes of subdivision ( b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation,
the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
( 1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
( 2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be
implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
( 3) The recommendation requires further analysis; with an explanation and
the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the
matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or
department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of
the public agency when applicable. The timeframe shall not exceed six
months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
( 4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not
warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
( c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or
personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both
the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by
the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those
budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The
response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the
findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department.
( d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the
purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that
person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
( e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation
regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon
request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be
detrimental.
( f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury
report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and
after the approval of the advising judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing
body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public
release of the final report.
COMMENDATION REPORT
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
GJ05- 059
The Information Technologies ( IT) Department was investigated by the 2003/ 2004 Grand Jury
and also the 2004/ 2005 Grand Jury. Findings and recommendations were somewhat similar in
both reports.
In September, 2005, El Dorado County hired a new IT Director, Ms. Jacqueline Nilius, to lead
that department. Her background included both public and private management experience with
Orange County and IBM. Shortly after being hired, Ms. Nilius began meeting with the Grand
Jury IT Committee to address issues and follow up on recommendations raised in the
aforementioned reports.
She put practices in place to correct deficiencies, and made presentations to the Board of
Supervisors to apprise them of her business plans. She made structural changes in job
responsibilities and reporting relationships, resulting in a more cohesive work environment.
The results of her efforts have created a much more positive work experience for staff, and a
direction and focus that was lacking in the past.
Special mention should be made of the department’s ongoing cooperative spirit in assisting the
Grand Jury Committees in publication challenges and media selection. Each time we
experienced a problem, IT quickly responded to our requests.
Therefore, the 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury would like to commend the IT Department for their
attention to detail in addressing problems cited in prior Final Reports.
1
BLANK PAGE
2
REPORTS & RESPONSE REVIEW
GRAND JURY INTERNAL REPORT
GJ05- 056
Reason for Report
The 2005- 06 Grand Jury created the Reports & Response Review Committee to follow up on
past responses from the Board of Supervisors. In some of the past responses, the term, “ The
recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,” or, “ The
recommendation requires further analysis” was used. These responses do not follow the penal
code mandated format of responding. The Jury contacted the Office of the Chief Administrator
and requested meetings to review past reports to encourage County Departments to place
timeframes on responses, as prescribed by the penal code. The following past reports were
reviewed:
FY 2003- 2004 Report
• Regarding the expansion of the current Animal Control facility in South Lake Tahoe, the
report now states that the expansion and correction to any infraction cited by the Grand
Jury is anticipated to be completed in the fall of 2007. A total of six recommendations
failing to comply with the penal code requirements were cited.
• The General Services Department will evaluate options for window upgrades and a
selection will be implemented by fall of 2006.
• The Material Recovery Facility responded to two ( 2) Findings and Recommendations.
These were addressed and have been implemented. No follow- up is necessary at this
time.
FY 2004- 2005 Report
• South Lake Tahoe Mental Health facility responded to four ( 4) Findings and
Recommend- ations. Roof and gutters, as well as heat and air circulation, have been
addressed and implemented. ADA compliant problems of the building will be addressed
by moving this department to new facilities. Anticipated move is to be completed by fall
of 2008.
Other responses are being studied. The Grand Jury in cooperation with the Chief Administrative
Office has initiated a follow- up procedure to track responses that require a timeframe for
implementation.
Commendation
The Grand Jury wishes to thank the Board of Supervisors and the CAO for their help in initiating
this Reports & Response Review tracking system. Future Grand Juries will continue to track the
necessary responses to insure the proper responses as per the penal code.
3
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
HIRING PROCESS
GJ 05- 029
Reason for the Report
The 2005/ 2006 Grand Jury received a complaint regarding the hiring, by the El Dorado Irrigation
District ( EID), of a high level employee with an alleged criminal background. This matter was
reported locally in the newspaper.
Background
EID had a procedure in place requiring prospective employees to fill out an application. This
procedure was not followed in this case.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
• None
Documents Reviewed
• Copies of newspaper articles
• Employment agreements between the employee and EID
• Job description of affected employee’s position
• Current employment packet for new applicants to EID
• Letter from EID Counsel
Facts
1. In January 2004, an agreement was entered into by EID and the employee to perform the
duties of Human Resources Director.
2. In June 2005 the employee’s alleged criminal past came to light and he was placed on
administrative leave while the matter was investigated by EID.
3. In June 2005, the employee and EID entered into a new agreement for the employee to
resign as Human Resources Director and to assume the duties of Assistant to the General
Manager.
• The new duties were to perform organizational analysis and other duties as
assigned by the General Manager
• The employee has no supervisory duties and no district employees report to him
5
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: By EID’s own admission, in a letter dated November 7, 2005, they failed to follow
their own procedure for a completed employment application in the hiring of the employee in
question.
1R. Recommendation: Training of department managers to ensure compliance with
established procedures.
2F. Finding: New procedures have been put in place for a completed employment application,
as well as a full background check, on all new employees. Applicants must also sign a
Certification of Information/ Release when filing an application for employment.
2R1. Recommendation: Clearly establish a central repository in Human Resources for
all employment applications filed with EID
2R2. Recommendation: Periodic review of all applications to ensure procedures are
followed by all department managers.
A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
6
EL DORADO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
EXECUTIVE WELLNESS PROGRAM
GJ05- 028
Reason for the Report
On October 24, 2005 the Grand Jury received a complaint concerning the implementation of the
Executive Wellness Program ( EWP), also known as the Management Wellness Program of the
El Dorado Irrigation District ( EID).
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed:
• General Manager of EID
• Employee of EID
Documents Reviewed:
• E- mails:
July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors and
Department Heads
July 12, 2004 from Human Resources Director to EID Board of Directors
July 19, 2004 from Human Resources Director to Payroll Clerk
July 28, 2004 from employee to EID Counsel
• EID Website
• Memorandum from employee to EID General Manager, May 10, 2004
• Letter from CPA to Human Resources Director, August 2, 2004
• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, December 23, 2005
• Letter from EID General Manager to Grand Jury, February 28, 2006
• Government Code Section 53200
Background
A health insurance plan for EID employees was in effect from 1980 with revisions made in 1983
and 1994. Prior to July 2004 the Board of Directors received “ cash- in- lieu” benefits for medical
expenses.
The EWP, also known as Management Wellness Program, was implemented on July 1, 2004. It
provides benefits up to $ 5,000 annually for medical, dental, vision and healthcare costs and
expenses incurred that are not covered by an insurance plan. This applies only to the Board of
Directors, General Manager, General Counsel, Department Heads, Assistant Department Heads,
their spouses and their dependents.
An additional $ 250 ( an all employee benefit) is provided, if the eligible EWP member belongs to
a health club.
7
Also, paid administrative leave for the management group was increased to 80 hours ( from an
unknown base) in addition to vacation and holiday time.
This EWP was initiated by and under the authority of the General Manager and the then Human
Resources Director.
Facts:
1. The General Manager and the Director of Human Resources made an executive decision
to initiate this EWP.
2. An e- mail notice sent on July 12, 2004, stated that the EWP was retroactively
implemented on July 1, 2004. Reimbursements under the Program are subject to Section
105 of the Internal Revenue Code.
3. No written notice was given to the Board of Directors and no discussions were held with
the Board before this announcement.
4. The Grand Jury requested copies of minutes regarding this program and was informed by
the General Manager that no minutes existed.
5. No written records exist regarding the criteria or codification of the EWP.
6. In response to an inquiry of the EID Human Resources Director, a certified public
accountant ( CPA), in a letter dated August 2, 2004, stated the following:
“ I researched the discrimination rules for ‘ self funded’ insurance
plans. Section 105 of the IRC states a self- insured health plan may
not discriminate in favor of certain individuals and must satisfy
certain ‘ nondiscriminatory rules’ which include covering 70% of the
total employees or make at least 70% of employees eligible to
participate, provided 80% if those eligible actually participate; or
cover a classification of employees that the IRS finds does not
discriminate in favor of ‘ highly compensated individuals.’ For
purposes of applying for these tests, the El Dorado Irrigation
District‘ s proposed plan did not qualify under these rules.
Consequently any benefits payable to any individuals under the
proposed plan would be deemed discriminatory and therefore taxed
to the individuals. Research of current revenue rulings and other
associated regulations failed to yield an allowable exception to the
above law.”
7. When the EWP policy was initiated no source of funding was identified.
8. During the same time frame, employees were asked to give up raises for 2 years and rate
payers were billed for rate increases in both January, 2005 and January, 2006.
8
9. The General Manager had the authority to approve expenditures of up to $ 50,000
annually without Board approval.
10. The maximum cost of the EWP was estimated not to exceed $ 60,000.
Findings/ Recommendations:
1F. Finding: The EID General Manager violated district administrative procedures that has a
$ 50,000 limitation by implementing a benefit program exceeding approved expenditure
guidelines.
1Ra. Recommendation: The EWP should be formally brought before the Board of
Directors for public hearing and vote.
1Rb. Recommendation: In the future, all employee benefit plans, including
management’s, should be presented before the Board of Directors for public hearing and
vote.
1Rc. Recommendation: Suspend the $ 5,000 EWP benefit until an independent audit
determines the legality under IRS guidelines.
2F. Finding: The criteria utilized for benefit coverage under the EWP is very broad in terms of
eligibility, dependents and coverage.
2Ra. Recommendation: Define specific criteria for those activities eligible for
reimbursement.
2Rb. Recommendation: Specifically define what constitutes a dependent.
3F. Finding: No requirement exists for certification of a medical condition and related expenses
not covered by an insurance plan.
3R. Recommendation: Certification should be required from a physician for
reimbursement of expenses eligible under the EWP.
4F. Finding: The practice of giving Board of Directors “ cash- in- lieu” benefits prior to
07- 01- 2004 appears to be illegal.
4R. Recommendation: An audit must be conducted by an independent agency to
determine the legality of the “ cash- in- lieu” program.
A response is required by the El Dorado Irrigation District within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
9
BLANK PAGE
10
EL DORADO COUNTY COMMISSION ON AGING
GJ05- 022
Reason for the Report
The El Dorado County Grand Jury received a complaint regarding a meeting of the Commission
on Aging, on November 18, 2004, wherein a violation of The Brown Act is alleged to have
occurred.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
• Commission on Aging Members
Documents Reviewed
• Meeting Agenda for November 18, 2004
• Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2004
• California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963
o The Brown Act
• Meeting Minutes and Agendas for random months
o November 2004
o August 2005
o September 2005
o October 2005
o November 2005
Background
The Commission on Aging is an advisory body to the Department of Human Services and the El
Dorado County Board of Supervisors, regarding programs administered by the Department of
Human Services.
The Commission on Aging meets monthly to conduct business. Agendas are posted to inform the
public of the time, place, and subject matter. Minutes of the meeting are published.
During the meeting of November 18, 2004 a member of the Commission suggested that they
adjourn to closed session. According to testimony they did adjourn to a closed session and
excluded members of the public.
The Agenda did not include that a closed session was planned at that particular meeting. The
Minutes reflect that a closed session was held; however, no synopsis of the discussion was
posted.
Testimony also indicates that the Commission routinely asks members of the public in
attendance to identify themselves and whom they represent.
11
As a sanctioned Commission of El Dorado County, the Commission on Aging is covered by
California Government Code Sections 54950- 54963. These sections are known as The Brown
Act and cover what is allowed and how meetings must be conducted, and to insure full public
disclosure.
The following sections are a summary of the legislation wording.
Section 54954 ( a) in summary states that if an advisory committee or standing committee posts
an agenda at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting the meeting shall be considered as a
regular meeting of the legislative body for purposes of The Brown Act.
Section 54954.2 ( a) in summary states that the agenda must be posted at least 72 hours before a
regular meeting and must contain a brief general description of each item of business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session. The
only exceptions to the requirement of posting agenda items are: “( 1) Emergency situations, ( 2)
Two- thirds vote of the body determines there is need for immediate action and the item came to
their attention after the posting of the agenda, and ( 3) The item was posted for a prior meeting
and the meeting was not more than five calendar days prior and the item was continued to the
meeting where action is being taken”.
Section 54957.1 ( a) in summary requires a public report of any action taken in closed session
and the vote or abstention of every member present. If no action is taken the minutes should
reflect that fact.
Section 54953.5 ( a) in summary states that a member of the public shall not be required, as a
condition of attendance, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a
questionnaire, or otherwise fulfill any obligation precedent to his or her attendance
Section 54960.1 In summary, by subsections, lists penalties regarding violations of The Brown
Act.
Facts
1. On November 18, 2004 at a regular meeting of the Commission on Aging a closed
session was held.
2. This closed session had not been properly noticed as required by The Brown Act.
3. The Minutes reflect that a closed session was held, however, no indication as to the
subject matter discussed was recorded.
4. Members of the public in attendance at Commission on Aging meetings are routinely
asked to identify themselves.
12
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The members of the Commission on Aging are not well versed in the requirements
and penalties of The Brown Act.
1R. Recommendation: Members of the Commission on Aging be issued copies of The
Brown Act to be read and applied.
2F. Finding: On November 18, 2004 the Commission on Aging went into closed session without
prior public notice on the Agenda. Government Code Section 54954.2 ( a) grants exception
where a body may go into closed session without notice, however, none of the exceptions were
met in this instance.
2R. Recommendation: Future closed sessions should strictly adhere to the provision of
the law.
3F. Finding: Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting reflect the closed session, however, no
synopsis of the item discussed was recorded.
3R. Recommendation: Amend the Minutes of the November 18, 2004 meeting to reflect
the item discussed and the result.
4F. Finding: The Commission on Aging does not hold closed sessions often. This is supported
by testimony and review of Agendas.
4R1. Recommendation: Protocol be put into place to ensure new members, when
appointed, receive proper training and a copy of The Brown Act.
4R2. Recommendation: Support staff must become familiar with The Brown Act to
ensure that proper posting and notification of closed sessions is provided in public
documents.
5F. Finding: The Commission on Aging routinely asks people in the audience to identify
themselves and whom they represent.
5R. Recommendation: The Commission on Aging require identification only from those
persons addressing the Commission as a whole on a specific matter.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
13
BLANK PAGE
14
EL DORADO COUNTY COURT SECURITY
GJ05- 032
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury received a citizen complaint regarding the security provided for the Superior
Courts in El Dorado County. Upon investigation, the Grand Jury believes that the security needs
to be improved. In addition, budgetary accounting from the County for the security provided is
not detailed and does not fully substantiate payment requests.
Scope of the Investigation
During jury year 2005- 2006, members of the Grand Jury made visits to all the court facilities in
El Dorado County.
People Interviewed:
• El Dorado County Sheriff
• Various Sheriff Department Employees
• Sheriff Sergeant In Charge Of Court Security
• Superior Court Executive Officer
• Various Superior Court Employees
Documents Reviewed:
• 2001- 2002 Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between Court and Sheriff
• Draft of 2006- 2007 MOU
Buildings Inspected:
• 2850 Fairlane Court, Bldg. C, Placerville
• 495 Main Street, Placerville
• 1354 Johnson Blvd., South Lake Tahoe
• 3321 Cameron Park Dr., Cameron Park
Background
The employees of the Superior Courts of El Dorado County are State employees. Many of the
court’s support services are provided by El Dorado County. Court security is provided by the El
Dorado County Sheriff’s Department. The court buildings are owned by El Dorado County,
although they are to be turned over to the State in the future. Security is contractually
documented in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the Court and the Sheriff.
While the most recent MOU expired in 2002, service has continued with all requirements and
pricing handled without a contract. A new MOU is being developed for FY 2006/ 2007. This
MOU draft specifies a fixed amount to be paid by the court.
15
Department 7 is located downstairs in County Building C and has a metal detector, but the
detector is only functional while court is in session. The unscreened access beyond the metal
detector is still accessible when court is closed. A weapon could be hidden in this area while
court is closed and then retrieved later while court is in session.
Department 7 has two small holding areas, one each for men and women. These areas are often
loaded beyond their capacity.
Department 8 is located on the ground floor of County Building C and has no metal detector for
screening court entry. Department 8 is not a criminal court, but does have family court and traffic
court hearings, both potentially volatile situations.
The Court and the Sheriff’s Department both wish to improve security in Departments 7 and 8.
This would require relocating the metal detection unit upstairs to service both courts. It would
also require limiting downstairs access near Department 7 to prevent off- hour access. These
efforts have been rebuffed by the county because it would be a hindrance to other county
departments and/ or citizens who do business in building C.
Departments 3, 4, 11, and 12 are co- located in South Lake Tahoe. Departments 3 and 4 are
criminal courts, without a holding cell. Prisoners enter through employee hallways and often
must remain in public or employee hallways ( albeit with a Sheriff) until called to court.
Facts
1. MOU for court security expired 2002
2. 2006/ 2007 MOU calls for fixed dollar amount to be paid
3. Departments 7 and 8 are in County Building C, which was never built to be a court
4. Holding area in Department 7 is often over- crowded
5. Department 8 has no metal screening
6. Courts in South Lake Tahoe do not have a holding area
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: Memorandum of Understanding for court security specifies a fixed dollar amount
for the year with some provision for changes.
1R. Recommendation: All payment requests from the Sheriff for court security should
be based on the actual hours the Sheriff spent on court security. Time keeping reports
should be provided detailing all hours and other expenditures.
16
2F. Finding: Both the Sheriff and Court management agree that security for Departments 7 and
8 needs to be improved. Failure to do so exposes the Court employees and Court clients to
unnecessary risk.
2R. Recommendation: Immediately relocate the metal detector in Building C to provide
screening of both Departments 7 and 8. Install gates to close off court areas when in
recess.
3F. Finding: South Lake Tahoe does not have a holding cell.
3R. Recommendation: Provide a holding cell in South Lake Tahoe court.
4F. Finding: The west slope courts are located in logistically diverse locations, in buildings that
are not suited for the issues that a 21st century court must face.
4R. Recommendation: Aggressively pursue consolidating the west slope courts into a
new, single facility, co- located with the county jail. Identify County and State funding required
to move forward quickly.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
17
BLANK PAGE
18
EL DORADO COUNTY JAILS/ JUVENILE HALLS
GJ05- 060
Reason for the Report
Per Penal Code § 919( b) members of the 2005- 2006 Grand Jury inspected the correctional
facilities located within the boundaries of the county.
Scope of the Inspection
Members of the Grand Jury made a physical visit to each facility. All accessible areas were
toured.
• At the Jails and Juvenile Halls, Managers and Supervisory Staff briefed Grand Jury
members on the operations and conducted tours.
• Explanations were given for:
1. Staffing levels.
2. Programs in each facility.
3. Future expansion plans
Background
With the exception of the South Lake Tahoe Juvenile Hall all facilities are aging and, for the
most part, are well maintained. ( Exceptions noted under findings)
Outside agencies, such as U. S. Marshals, will house prisoners on as needed basis in the County
Jails. Alpine County contracts with El Dorado County for jail services.
A contract nurse is on duty and a doctor is on call at all Jail and Juvenile Hall facilities. A
contract dentist provides emergency dental care on premises.
Food at all facilities is provided by on premise kitchen staff as well as inmate workers. The
menus are varied and provide necessary nutritional value. The facilities are inspected on a
regular basis for compliance with applicable health codes. Staff receives periodic training to
insure proper food handling.
Facts
1. Employees at each facility are well trained and appear to enjoy their jobs.
2. Supervisory staff at each facility encourages employee participation in resolving
problems encountered in the workplace.
3. El Dorado County Jail in Placerville was visited April 3, 2006. No adverse conditions
were observed.
4. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in Placerville was visited March 13, 2006. No adverse
conditions were observed.
19
5. El Dorado County Juvenile Hall in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. No
adverse conditions observed.
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: El Dorado County Jail in South Lake Tahoe was visited May 4, 2006. It
was noted that the carpet in the control room is frayed.
1R. Recommendation: Inspect all carpeted areas and repair/ replace carpeting as needed.
COMMENDATION
May 25, 2006, the Grand Jury toured the Growlersburg Conservation Camp located in
Georgetown. This facility is to be commended for their on- site program. The facility is jointly
run by the CA Department of Corrections and CA Department of Forestry.
A garden provides a large number of fresh vegetables for inmates throughout the growing season
that saves a substantial amount of budget monies.
The wood shop constructs furniture for governmental agencies on a cost of materials basis. The
quality of work is excellent. The wood shop manages to continue running despite recent budget
cuts. This shows a dedication by staff to have a meaningful program in place for inmates.
A response is required by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors within ninety
( 90) days. See Table of Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
20
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE BUILDING
Internal Investigation
GJ05- 057
Reason for the Report
The Grand Jury visited and inspected buildings in the county that were built prior to 1950.
After inspecting the buildings located at 515 & 525 Main Street in Placerville, it was determined
that the Office of the District Attorney, housed at the above addresses, required further attention.
Scope of the Investigation
Members of the Grand Jury toured the District Attorney’s Office by appointment on October 13,
2005. We were given a history of the building and briefed on the operations of the District
Attorney’s office.
People Interviewed:
• District Attorney Personnel
• Court Executive Officer
• Court Operations Managers
• Administrative Personnel
• General Services Personnel
Documents Reviewed:
• Prior Grand Jury Reports regarding the District Attorney’s Office Building
• Letters between the Grand Jury and CAL OSHA regarding the condition of the
District Attorney’s Office Building
• General Service’s Interdepartmental Memo
• Board of Supervisor’s Agendas, May 22 and June 12, 2001 regarding the District
Attorney's Office Building
Background
The building which houses the District Attorney’s Office is one of historical significance. It was
first built and used as a Post Office.
To enter the District Attorney’s Office one must walk up several stairs to the door. There is no
sign advising citizens with disabilities how to enter the building. Upon entering the office it is
apparent that space is limited and that employees have outgrown the space allotted to them. The
aisles are congested with boxes of files. The lighting in the main “ support staff” area is dated,
yellowed and does not appear to give sufficient light to the employees. Most employees have
additional lighting on their desks. Numerous fans throughout the office are used by the personnel
to cool and move the stale air.
21
The basement of the District Attorney’s Office at 515 Main Street was flooded on October 9,
2000, resulting in a mold problem; all mold has been removed at great expense. The Board of
Supervisors issued an action item in June, 2001 that stated employees could not work
permanently in this area. This level is used for storage, a conference room, a photo enlargement
room, IT work area, and a make- shift workout area with shower. There is no elevator to this area.
It is dark, damp and the air smells musty.
Clearly this building has served the community well in the past, but it is no longer able to
comply to certain codes ( i. e. fire sprinklers, ADA) and it would not be wise to spend money to
retrofit the building into compliance, or to try to expand office space into the basement.
Facts
1. 515 Main Street is an old building that is of historic significance.
2. There is no sign at the street entrance directing persons with disabilities to enter at the
rear of the building.
3. Parking is insufficient for current as well as future needs.
4. The employees of 515 Main Street are allowed to use only the main floor for office
space.
5. There is insufficient room for the current staff with no room for growth.
6. Aisles are congested with boxes for storage.
7. Old PC hardware is stored in numerous areas, under desks and on file cabinets.
8. Lighting in the support area is inadequate.
9. Due to the age of the building, overhead fire sprinklers are not legally required; however,
there are important, original, irreplaceable documents and evidence that can be destroyed
in the event of a fire.
10. As of the date of our inspection fire drills had not occurred, although procedures are in
place.
11. Ceiling tiles at the main level are water stained from either current or previous roof leaks.
12. Repairs to the lower level of the office building will not solve the myriad of other
significant deficiencies.
13. There is no elevator between floors in the building.
14. The ceiling in conference room in the lower level is peeling and does not appear to have
been repaired since the Grand Jury report of 2002/ 2003 first reported the problem.
15. Mold was visible in the shower and on the shower curtain in the “ workout” area.
16. On June 11, 2001, the Board of Supervisors for El Dorado County found that “ the
basement space is inadequate for the District Attorney’s staff . . . including space needs
and inability to fully comply with the requirements of the ADA.”
17. DA Investigators are housed in a separate building, 525 Main Street, creating workplace
inefficiencies.
22
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The District Attorney and staff have outgrown their office space.
1R. Recommendation: Relocate the District Attorney and his office staff into one office
facility.
2F. Finding: 515 & 525 Main Street are not suitable for any tenancy in their` current condition.
2R. Recommendation: Renovate these buildings if required for future county use.
Commentary:
To our knowledge there is no long range plan to build a new facility that would accommodate
the District Attorney and other related offices. The County owns properties that could
accommodate such a structure combined with a new, efficient and modern Justice Center for the
DA and other related county departments. See Grand Jury Report regarding leased facilities.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within sixty ( 60) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
23
BLANK PAGE
24
COUNTY LEASED BUILDINGS EXPENDITURE
Internal Investigation
GJ05- 055
Reason for the Report
El Dorado County government offices are housed in both county owned and county leased
properties. The County pays over $ 2.2 million a year on leased properties. El Dorado County
continues to unnecessarily lease, rather than own, facilities for county departments. The County
should aggressively replace leased facilities with owned facilities.
Scope of the Investigation
Discussions and Interviews with:
• CAO
• General Services personnel
• Auditor and various personnel
• Members of the Board of Supervisors
Documents Reviewed:
• El Dorado County Leased Facilities, rev. 08- 24- 05
• Building Rents and Leases Spreadsheet
• General Services Proposed Capital Improvement Plan, rev. 01- 30- 06
• Rental Expenses: FY05 MS Excel Spreadsheet
Background
El Dorado County spent over $ 2.2 million on real estate leases in FY2005.
El Dorado County has grown enormously over the past 10 years and will continue to grow. With
growth comes the need to increase county services. New personnel require an expanded as well
as a safe and adequate workplace.
County citizens are currently paying tax dollars to lease buildings, when their tax dollars could
be going toward buildings the county would eventually own.
The County leases certain office space due to program reimbursements from local, State and
Federal Governments. Most county health department offices are in leased facilities. There is a
misconception that funding sources would be lost if these departments were housed in county
owned buildings.
For the benefit of county residents, a current list of the departments housed in leased facilities is
attached to this report.
25
Facts
1. The County paid the following approximate sums for leasing these facilities in FY2005:
a. $ 175,000 to house the Department of Transportation in South Lake Tahoe
b. $ 96,000 to house a satellite office to the Building Department in El Dorado Hills
c. $ 86,000 to lease space for the Probation Department, 471 Pierroz Road, Placerville
d. $ 79,000 to house the office of the Public Defender in Placerville
e. $ 68,000 to house the Sheriff’s detectives in Diamond Springs
f. $ 40,000 to house the Department of Transportation in El Dorado Hills
g. $ 23,900 to lease space for the D. A. Victim Witness/ MDIC at 550 Main Street,
Placerville
h. $ 13,755 a year to lease space for a Law Library at 550 Main Street, Placerville
2. Many Governmental health programs will reimburse the County for office space in
County owned buildings as well as in County leased buildings.
3. The County has issued bonds in the past to purchase buildings or land.
Findings/ Recommendations
1F. Finding: The County spends in excess of $ 2,000,000 per year on real estate leases.
1R. Recommendation: The County should purchase land and build facilities for
permanent long term use.
2F. Finding: The County currently builds facilities or acquires property on a cash basis.
2R. Recommendation: The County pursue various creative financing options to
accelerate acquisition of property and to build facilities, i. e., lease options, land swaps,
bonds, lease revenue bonds, County Developer Partnerships, etc.
3F. Finding: It is a misconception by various county officials that the County would lose
program reimbursed funds if they were housed in a County owned facility.
3Ra. Recommendation: Analyze program contracts/ agreements to determine financial
impact of owning versus leasing.
3Rb. Recommendation: Educate senior county managers regarding specific program
reimbursement of funds for leased and owned buildings.
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of
Contents, “ Notice to Respondents.”
26
El Dorado County Leased Facilities
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 9,056 04/ 01/ 97 0.976 $ 106,105.68
3057 Briw Road, Suite B 03/ 31/ 04
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES 29,819 01/ 01/ 96 1.004 $ 359,216.88
3057 Briw Road, Suite A 12/ 31/ 02
Placerville, CA 95667
LAW LIBRARY 1,667 10/ 01/ 00 0.688 $ 13,755.00
550 Main Street 09/ 30/ 05
Placerville, CA 95667
COMM. SER/ CARE SERVICES 5,340 09/ 15/ 02 1.227 $ 78,654.48
Office Space 09/ 14/ 05
630 Main Street
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 960 09/ 01/ 00 1.223 $ 14,093.28
Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 03
941 Spring Street, # 7
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3,060 01/ 01/ 00 0.961 $ 35,271.48
EMS/ Ambulance Billing 12/ 31/ 02
415 Placerville Drive, Suites J, K & L
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 06/ 15/ 02 0.935 $ 14,810.52
Vital Statistics 05/ 31/ 05
415 Placerville Drive, Suites M & N
Placerville, CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1,320 09/ 01/ 03 1.000 $ 15,840.00
Health Promotions 08/ 31/ 06
415 Placerville Dr., Suites S & T
Placerville , CA 95667
HEALTH DEPARTMENT 660 09/ 20/ 02 0.913 $ 7,227.84
Health Promotions 09/ 19/ 05
415 Placerville Drive, Suite R
Placerville, CA 95667
SO STAR PROGRAM 1,253 01/ 01/ 05 n/ a n/ a
6051 Gold Hill Road 12/ 31/ 08
Placerville, CA 95667
27
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
MENTAL HEALTH/ Admin. 7,567 06/ 01/ 98 1.014 $ 92,034.00
344 Placerville Drive 05/ 31/ 03
Suites 12- 18 & 20
Placerville, CA 95667
MENTAL HEALTH 1,162 11/ 01/ 00 1.025 $ 14,288.16
344 Placerville Drive 10/ 31/ 03
Suite 11
Placerville, CA 95667
MENTAL HEALTH 3,700 05/ 01/ 96 1.000 $ 44,218.44
Day Treatment Program 04/ 30/ 01
2808 Mallard Lane
Placerville, CA 95667
D. A. VICTIM WITNESS/ MDIC 1,460 09/ 01/ 04 1.250 $ 23,900.04
550 Main Street, Suite H
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES 1,838 04/ 01/ 99 1.237 $ 27,273.84
JOB ONE PROGRAM 02/ 28/ 06
4535 Missouri Flat Rd., Suite 1A
Placerville, CA 95667
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH 1,004 09/ 15/ 04 1.550 $ 18,674.40
El Dorado Hills Sub- Station 09/ 14/ 07
981 Governor Drive, Suite 104
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a
Pollock Pines Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08
6430 Pony Express Trail
Pollock Pines, CA 95726
S. O. WNET TASK FORCE 1,300 06/ 01/ 00 1.212 $ 18,912.24
3330 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 900 05/ 31/ 05
Cameron Park, CA 95682
SHERIFF'S DETECTIVES 3,755 12/ 01/ 04 1.500 $ 67,590.00
720 Pleasant Valley Road 12/ 31/ 08
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
SHERIFF'S OUTREACH shared 12/ 01/ 03 n/ a n/ a
Fort Jim Sub- Station space 11/ 30/ 08
3700 Fort Jim Rd.
Placerville, CA 95667
28
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
SHERIFF'S STORAGE 4,000 09/ 20/ 02 0.702 $ 33,708.96
3615 China Garden Rd. ( Stage Coach) 09/ 19/ 05
Placerville, CA 95667
HUMAN SERVICES n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a $ 100.00
5941 Union Mine Road 01/ 08/ 06
El Dorado, CA 95673
HUMAN SVCS- 24 PARKING 24 parking 06/ 01/ 01 n/ a $ 5,820.00
3047 Briw Rd. spaces 05/ 31/ 03
Placerville, CA 95667
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 03 n/ a $ 12,240.00
Shingle Springs Community Center 06/ 30/ 04
4440 South Shingle Road
Shingle Springs , CA 95682
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 5,195.64
Pollock Pines Senior Center 04/ 01/ 01
5581 Gail Street
Pollock Pines, CA 95726
COMM. SERV./ SR. MEAL SITE n/ a 07/ 01/ 00 n/ a $ 18,000.00
Mother Lode Lions Club 06/ 30/ 02
1741 Missouri Flat Road
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
PROBATION DEPARTMENT 7,000 12/ 12/ 04 1.028 $ 86,378.04
471 Pierroz Rd. 12/ 11/ 07
Placerville, CA 95667
S. O. FIRING RANGE n/ a 01/ 09/ 96 n/ a n/ a
5941 Union Mine Rd. 01/ 08/ 06
El Dorado, CA 95673
COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL land only 03/ 08/ 82 n/ a
2301 Coolwater Creek Road 03/ 09/ 07 $ 1.00
Placerville, CA 95667
SHERIFF 2,520 07/ 01/ 99 0.205 $ 6,204.00
3 Training Classrooms 07/ 31/ 03
100 Placerville Dr.
Placerville, CA 95667
OAKRIDGE COUNTY LIBRARY 6,400 09/ 01/ 99 0.716 $ 55,004.00
1120 Harvard Way 08/ 31/ 04
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
29
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6,680 06/ 20/ 03 1.204 $ 96,480.60
4507 Golden Foothill Parkway 3 Sierra 06/ 30/ 08
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
PUBLIC DEFENDER 5,500 10/ 01/ 01 1.136 $ 75,000.00
4327 Golden Center Drive 09/ 30/ 08
Placerville, CA 95667
IHSS 2,100 01/ 01/ 01 1.126 $ 28,362.96
694 Pleasant Valley Road, Suite 9 12/ 31/ 05
Diamond Springs, CA 95619
GEORGETOWN ZOB OFFICE 100 03/ 01/ 98 0.900 $ 1,080.00
6680 Orleans St., Suite D mo to mo
Georgetown, CA 95634
GEORGETOWN LIBRARY 1,200 10/ 01/ 98 0.750 $ 10,800.00
6680 Orleans Street, Suite 3 09/ 30/ 03
Georgetown, CA 95634
MENTAL HEALTH 3,562 02/ 10/ 04 2.004 $ 85,650.84
Day Treatment Program 01/ 31/ 09
1120 Third Street
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
HUMAN SERVICES 7,200 01/ 01/ 01 2.174 $ 187,791.48
971 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 05
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
HUMAN SERVICES 3,836 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 97,370.76
981 Silver Dollar, Suites 1- 5 12/ 31/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
MENTAL HEALTH 3,745 01/ 01/ 01 2.115 $ 95,027.52
981 Silver Dollar 12/ 31/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96156
DOT 6,000 04/ 15/ 02 2.440 $ 175,680.00
924 Emerald Bay Road 04/ 14/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 95616
HUMAN SERVICES - JOB ONE 477 mo to mo 1.400 $ 8,016.00
1029 Tekala, Suite 5
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES 6,000 07/ 15/ 02 2.451 $ 176,448.84
924 Emerald Bay Road 07/ 14/ 07
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
30
Occupant & SQ. LEASE COST AMOUNTS
FACILITY LOCATION FT. DATES per SF Annually
DOT SNOW REMOVAL CREW 1,408 1.172 $ 6,600.00
551 McKinney Creek Road
Tahoma, CA 96142
TOTALS $ 2,218,826.92
annual cost
31
BLANK PAGE
32
PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES
GJ05- 050
Executive Summary
The 2005- 06 Grand Jury received a citizen’s complaint about the planning and building
processes used by the new Development Services Department. The complainant wanted the
Grand Jury to investigate the Planning and Building Divisions toward the goal of improving
overall performance, including customer satisfaction. The following deficiencies were pointed
out by the complainant:
• The divisions do not seem to have guidelines or processes in place to help staff identify
how long a project will take from application to permit issuance.
• Permit issuance for all projects ( residential, discretionary and ministerial) is taking too
long.
• There is no consistency as to the information being disseminated; it varies depending on
the staff member who is waiting on and/ or working with the customer.
• Staff uses personal judgment in the planning processes instead of following applicable
rules.
• There are no standardized checklists for customers to use to assist them in the permit
process.
• There is a backlog of cases related to the General Plan implementation and the
department has no strategy in place to deal with the problem.
• There is no communication between affected department heads to insure the expeditious
processing of discretionary projects.
• The County Planning Commission rubber stamps departmental staff decisions instead of
setting policy for issues that come under its jurisdiction.
• Staff spends the majority of its time “ fighting fires” instead of managing the divisions.
• The department internet website provides incorrect information.
• The planning and building divisions do not provide enough emphasis on customer
satisfaction.
After numerous interviews with departmental management, other County staff, members of
various county trades and business organizations, county residents, and a thorough review of
public records, the Grand Jury decided to write a report.
33
The Grand Jury found that high expectations have been placed on the department top
management to complete the merger of the two separate departments, implement the General
Plan, eliminate case backlog, and continue to process new applications, all on a timely basis.
Although the new Director has made many positive changes in a short period of time, the fact
remains that the divisions do not have sufficient personnel. The divisions have had recruitment
problems with Senior Planners and Engineers who are used in the Plan Check process depending
on the complexity of the project. The Board has recently approved a new compensation package
designed to alleviate this problem and time will tell if the increase is sufficient to entice
candidates.
The department has indicated that it does not plan to hire additional personnel due to a decrease
in building projects; however, single family dwelling permits are taking eight weeks or longer,
discretionary projects are taking six to nine months before they go to public hearing and
ministerial projects such as pools, decks and inspection exempt agricultural buildings are taking
six weeks. The lack of sufficient and qualified personnel is resulting in very unpopular and
unacceptable delays in issuing permits. It results in increased building costs for the County and
delays in the implementation of measures under the General Plan since most of the Planners have
been on board two years or less. The Grand Jury recommends the hiring of additional plan
checkers in the applicable classifications and/ or allocating funds for outside consultants.
The Grand Jury recommends more training for personnel to insure consistency in dissemination
of information to the customers and to eliminate mistakes made by Building Inspectors on
building sites. The Grand Jury also recommends changes to departmental participation in
discretionary projects to make sure that the customer is not subject to numerous changes and
extra expense.
Additionally, the Grand Jury recommends the establishment of specific performance standards to
gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness. Furthermore, it
recommends that Customer Questionnaires be handed out with the final permit and the final
building inspection in order to obtain a more complete picture of their performance.
In conducting its investigation, the Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals who
would speak to the Jury for fear of retaliation by departmental personnel. They had chosen not to
speak up before because their livelihood depends on them staying on good terms with
departmental staff. The Grand Jury stated that it is the Board of Supervisors who are ultimately
responsible for the implementation of the General Plan, and that any retaliation against a
customer by staff will be subject to disciplinary action.
Background
The county department, headed by the Director of Development Services, has a budget of
$ 11,644,579 and 122 allocated positions of which approximately 99 are filled. Under the
Director, 3 Deputy Directors oversee the Planning, Building and Administration functions
respectively. The Deputy Director- Administration functions as an office manager overseeing
such functions as personnel, purchasing, and other administrative duties. The Deputy Director
34
over Building supervises three Branch Managers who are responsible for managing the three
Permit Centers located in Placerville, El Dorado Hills and South Lake Tahoe. These Permit
Centers are designed to function as a one stop center for plan review, issuance of permits,
building code compliance and inspections.
The major responsibilities of the Building Division are to issue building and grading permits for
commercial and residential buildings; conduct plan checks and building inspections to insure that
plans comply with applicable building codes; and assist the public with building concerns and
code enforcement issues.
The Planning Services Division has three distinct functions: current planning, long range
planning and special projects. The Current Planning unit is focused on permit and development
application processing in conjunction with the Permit Centers. The staff assigned to this function
is primarily responsible for processing discretionary development applications, such as land
divisions, special use permits and zoning applications including the required California
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) analysis. The Long Range planning unit is responsible for
the implementation of the County General Plan and compliance with a variety of State long
range planning requirements. The Special Projects unit prepares and oversees the preparation of
CEQA documents for County capital improvement projects related to new or expanded facilities
such as park projects as well as new County buildings. This unit also participates in the
development of plans and administration of regional, State, and Federal endangered species,
programs, habitat conservation, and cultural resources management.
The department also has a new Code Enforcement Section with three staff members headed by a
Zoning Administrator. This unit enforces violations of the County Code and other related codes
and ordinances. Hearings are conducted by the officers related to matters involving safety related
or non- permitted items such as illegal business, fire created hazards and substandard or
dangerous housing. This section works in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department to enforce
the vehicle abatement program.
The department provides staff to the County Planning Commission who is the Board’s advisor
on land use planning. The Commission has five members, each one appointed by a member of
the Board of Supervisors from his/ her respective District. The Commission reviews matters
related to planning and development. The Commission either approves or denies or makes
recommendations to the Board. The Commission meets twice a month.
Scope of the Investigation
People Interviewed
Member, Board of Supervisors
County Administrative Officer ( CAO)
Assistant County Counsel
Director, Department of Development Services ( DS)
DS Deputy Director – Planning
DS Deputy Director – Building Official
DS Deputy Director - Administration
35
DS Branch Manager – Placerville Permit Center
DS Branch Manger – El Dorado Hills Permit Center
DS Principal Planner
DS Building Inspector
Chairman, Planning Commission
Member, Building Industry Advisory Committee ( BIAC)
Housing Standards Program Manager, State Department of Housing and Community Development
Members of various County trade and business organizations, professional associations,
members at large of the building community and county residents
Documents Reviewed
2005- 2006 Fiscal Year DS Department Budget
County General Plan adopted by Board of Supervisors on July 19, 2004
County Website on Planning and Building Services
DS Department Organizational Chart
Personnel allocation figures for DS Department
Permit Center Application and Plan Check Review Process Flow Chart Sheet
Building Fee Funded Activities handout
Building Services Permit Activity handout ( 2001- 2005)
Placerville Permit Center Customer Service and Building Inspection Activity ( 2005)
Permit Fee 2006 Current Distribution handout
DS Year in Review - 2005 and Key Goals for 2006
Building Inspections Checklist Summary
General Plan Consistency Checklist
Customer Service Questionnaire
Class Specifications for Building Inspector, Planner and Engineer Series
23 different checklists used by Planning Division for processing development
applications
2005 Permit Application Packet for Single Family Dwellings in Lake Tahoe Basin
Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan Application
Rule 223- 2 Fugitive Dust- Asbestos Hazard Mitigation Information
California Government Code Sections 818.4 and 818.6 pertaining to Liability of Public
Entities and Public Employees
“ Slow Growth Proves Costly- Problems Mount in Santa Barbara”- Sacramento Bee,
March 27, 2006
Facts
1. The County approved a new General Plan in July 19, 2004 to comply with the Writ of
Mandate issued by the Court on July 19,1999 directing the County to correct deficiencies
in its original approval of the 1996 General Plan. In August 31, 2005, the Sacramento
Superior Court ruled that the County had successfully addressed each of the issues raised
in the writ. The writ was lifted and on October 3, 2005 and the County began accepting
new applications that previously were prohibited under the writ.
36
2. That court ruling was appealed to the State Appellate Court in late fall 2005 and until the
court ruled on that appeal, the County continued processing development applications
under the 2004 General Plan. However, the County continued to exercise caution in the
interpretation and implementation of the General Plan while they waited for final
adjudication.
3. On April 18, 2006, the County and the El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth
reached an agreement that settled the litigation. Under the settlement agreement, the
petitioner agreed to drop its appeal and the County waived its claim for attorney’s fees
($ 21,000) and agreed to maintain the current interpretation of the General Plan Policy
related to oak woodland habitat.
4. The current Director, hired in January, 2005, was assigned the tasks of completing the
merger of the then existing Planning and Building Departments and the implementation
of the newly adopted General Plan. Additionally, he inherited a backlog of 64
development projects waiting for the writ to be lifted and 1,500 open code enforcement
cases. 30 new cases of code enforcement violations are received each month. The
department also processes over 6,000 permits a year of which over 1,500 are for new
dwellings. In 2005, over 39,000 inspection stops were conducted, and close to 24,000
individual customers were served from the Placerville office alone.
5. During 2005, the new Director was able to achieve major changes in the department such
as:
a. Created Branch Manager positions to oversee planning and building functions in
each Permit Center
b. Recruited six Planning staff to support Permit Center functions
c. Reorganized building Plan check responsibilities
d. Established a New Case review process for all new major planning projects
c. Re- established “ Express plan check” for certain categories of permits
f. Implemented a new General Plan consistency checklist for all new projects
g. Obtained contracts for “ as needed” planning services to handle increased workload
while recruitment of senior level Planners and Engineers, was underway
h. Issued a request for proposals to planning and environmental services firms to
establish a list of “ on call” consultants to assist with priority projects.
i. Prepared a revised Grading Ordinance
j. Created a Code Enforcement and Vehicle Abatement Hearing Officer position
k. Established a tracking system by which all permit applications will be monitored
by staff to identify and reduce delays in the permit process
l. Implemented a Building Information Counter Log where by all planning related
calls received will be returned on the same day or the day after.
6. The 2004 General Plan provides for long range direction and policy for the use of land
within the County ( El Dorado Forest comprises 57% of the County’s land base). The
General Plan relies upon measures identified in each element that implements the
policies. Modification of the measures requires amendment of the General Plan. There
are nine elements in the General Plan ( land; transportation; housing; public services and
37
utilities; health, safety and noise element; conservation and open space; agriculture and
forestry; parks and recreation; and economic development). The land use element alone
has 15 measures, many of them with multiple implementation requirements and a
significant number of them have a one to two year implementation timetable.
7. Each year the 2,000 to 3,000 permit applications filed require a full plan check. During
the Plan Check process the plans are reviewed by building inspectors, planners and/ or
engineers ( otherwise known as plan checkers) depending on the size and complexity of
the project. The plans are reviewed for consistency with planning, grading and building
ordinances and codes. Under the new General Plan, any structure over 120 square feet
must be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan.
8. The Planning Division currently has one Principal Planner assigned to General Plan
implementation. In addition, there are one Principal Planner, four Senior Planners and six
Assistant Planners assigned to current planning functions and one Principal Planner
assigned to special projects. Tentative maps, parcel maps and subdivision maps have not
been done by the department in six years and there is no one in the staff, with few
exceptions, that know how to do it. The majority of the planning staff has been on board
for two years or less. Several amendments to the Zoning Code have created interpretation
conflicts. Agricultural setbacks have become confusing. The review and update of the
Design Standards Manual, adopted in 1986 and last amended in 1990, is a top priority
under the General Plan and no one has been assigned to that project.
9. Management staff has indicated that they could keep five Planners occupied fulltime for
the next five years implementing the General Plan.
10. The department has been unsuccessful in filling four vacancies at the Senior and
Principal Planner classifications, and three at the Senior Engineer level. The latter three
are needed in the in the Building Division; one in grading plan review and two in plan
check. Management indicates that salary and retirement benefits are not competitive with
surrounding jurisdictions. Top management believes that a 15% salary increase would be
more competitive as well as changes in retirement benefits ( employees picking up the
additional cost).
11. On April 25, 2006 the Board of Supervisors approved three new recruitment tools to
entice new employees: a five percent increase in salary for Senior Planners and Civil
Engineers, a six thousand dollar signing bonus for “ hard to recruit” classifications, and up
to five thousand dollar moving allowance with a two year minimum stay on the job if the
new employee takes the moving allowance.
12. 180 building inspections are conducted each work day by approximately 25 inspectors.
The Development Services Department is mandated by law to enforce minimum
construction and equipment standards and codes to protect life, limb, health, property and
public welfare. The inspector’s responsibilities do not include review of quality of
workmanship by the contractor. The majority of the Inspectors are hired at the II level.
Senior Building Inspectors are assigned to non - residential projects. Building Inspectors
38
are rotated every 6 months. Employees are required to have a minimum of one
certification ( building inspection) but they perform all types of inspections including,
electrical, mechanical and plumbing. Time of inspections varies from 15 minutes to 45
depending on the type of inspection ( foundation and framing taking longer).
13. Under California Government Code 818.6, the County itself is immune from liability not
only for negligence in failing to make an inspection but for negligence in the inspection
itself.
14. In 1999 there were 15 people assigned to the Building Department Customer Counter in
the Placerville location, including staff members from the Planning, Environmental
Management ( EM) and Transportation ( DOT) departments. That number has been
reduced to five with no representation from either Environmental Management or DOT.
15. In 2005 $ 150,000 in contract planning services were spent to expedite plan check review,
priority been given to employment generated commercial projects.
16. The Department is requesting an allocation of $ 1 million in the 2006- 07 budget for
contract planning services for General Plan implementation. Management expects that
this amount will cover implementation of some measures, such as floor area ratio, Option
B under tree canopy retention and upgrade and construction work on Missouri Flat Road.
17. By state law the Department cannot profit from the building fees that it charges. Without
any additional monies from the General Fund, the Department must raise fees to fund
new positions.
18. In the 2005- 2006 budget, the department identified several key issues to work on such as:
a. The relocation of the Courts from the main floor of Building C to allow full
implementation of the Placerville Permit Center with permit service participation
from the Departments of Transportation ( DOT) and Environmental Management.
b. The commercial grading function currently with DOT to transfer to Development
Services in July, 2005.
c. Reducing plan review times to 30 days or less on a consistent basis since the
times had reached seven weeks due to high activity levels. The department stated
that with the lifting of the writ and continued build- out of approved projects in El
Dorado Hills, it expected an increase in development activity with a
commensurate increase on both plan check and building inspection services.
None of the above identified key issues have been implemented as of the writing of this
report ( May, 2006).
19. Management has indicated that it does not plan to ask the Board of Supervisors to fund its
full allocation of positions beyond the key Planners and Engineer’s positions because the
current workload does not justify it.
Findings/ Recommendations
39
1F. Finding: High expectations have been placed on the department top management by the
Board of Supervisors, the building community at large and the residents of the county to
complete the merger, implement the County General Plan, eliminate the backlog of all cases and
continue to process new projects and permits, all in a timely basis. Even though the new Director
has made many positive changes in such a short period of time, the fact is that the department
does not have sufficient personnel, neither in the Planning Services Division nor in the Permit
Centers, to accomplish all that it’s been requested to do without significant and unpopular delays.
Discretionary projects are currently taking 6- 9 months to get ready before going to public
hearing. Instead of spending $ 1 million in outside planning services, the County could hire three
Senior Planners at a cost of $ 300- 350,000, saving the County between $ 700,000 and $ 650,000.
Unfilled vacancies causes delays in the processing of construction projects further increasing
building costs to the County.
1R. Recommendation: The hiring and retention of new employees in the Senior Planner
and Engineer classifications must be monitored closely and further changes in
compensation shall be explored if current salary and benefits do not produced desired
results.
2Fa. Finding: Departmental staff has set a standard of issuing single family dwelling permits
within four weeks and express plan check permits ( pools, garages, decks, etc.) over the counter
on the same day, but that is not the norm. The lack of sufficient plan checkers is causing delays
of up to eight weeks and three weeks, respectively. Many builders and homeowners choose the
third party plan check option, at an additional cost, to minimize delays.
2Fb. Finding: Additionally, because all structures over 120 square feet have to be reviewed for
consistency with the General Plan, the consistency standards being applied to single dwelling
residences and other ministerial projects are those established for discretionary projects, creating
further delays.
2Ra. Recommendation: Develop new General Plan consistency standards for single
family dwellings and other ministerial projects in order to reduce the time in issuing
permits.
2Rb. Recommendation: Hire additional plan checkers, in the applicable classifications,
to insure the 30 day or less plan review time for residential permits and one day for
express plan check permits.
3F. Finding: The merger of the two departments ( Planning and Building) into the new
Development Services Department has resulted in the hiring of new personnel and the
reassignment of some existing employees. Implementation of the General Plan and revision of
codes and ordinances continue to generate regular changes that staff must assimilate in order to
provide accurate information to the public. In some cases, this has resulted in wrong information
being issued and different information being provided by different staff members. This causes
frustration and costly changes on the part of the public and results in negative publicity for the
department. Furthermore, applicants still need to go to other departments ( Department of
40
Transportation and Environmental Management) after receiving their permit to seek their
respective approval.
3Ra. Recommendation: The regular weekly meetings being held by the Director with
other top management should be held on an ongoing basis. These meetings are designed
to insure consistency in the interpretation of the General Plan, codes and ordinances.
Additionally, the assignment of one Principal Planner to the Permit Centers as a central
point to answer difficult planning questions for non- discretionary projects is a step in the
right direction.
3Rb. Recommendation: Expand the length and/ or frequency of the one- hour weekly
training sessions held for the Development Technicians and other counter personnel to
insure consistency in the dissemination of information.
3Rc. Recommendation: Efforts to move the Courts out of the Placerville office should
be expedited so Development Services can complete its plans to absorb the other building
and planning related functions of Department of Transportation and Environmental
Management such as transportation planning, commercial grading permits sewer, wells,
septic, demolition and waste recycle.
3Rd. Recommendation: Institute an inside Learning Academy to provide a structured
training program in both technical and customer oriented areas.
4F. Finding: The Technical Advisory Committee ( TAC) comprised of representatives from
various departments ( DS, Environmental Health, DOT) is used by the Planning staff to review all
discretionary projects with each applicant. TAC meetings are scheduled for Monday afternoons
to review pending projects. The problems with TAC are numerous: the departments do not
provide their input in a timely manner; department representatives either don’t show up or send a
different representative to each meeting; the representatives have no authority to speak for the
department thereby resulting in multiple and costly changes for the applicant; Planning lacks the
authority to require other department’s attendance; decisions communicated over the phone lack
documentation; and there is no designated Chairman. Often outside agencies, such as EID and
fire districts, do not provide input on a timely fashion. And sometimes, the Planning Services
Division fails to contact affected agencies ( both outside and inside agencies, such as the
Agricultural Commission) and issues permits without the proper authorization. Again, delays
result in frustrated customers, agencies and increase costs to the applicants.
4R. Recommendation: Departmental representatives assigned to TAC must have the
authority to speak for the department. All changes requested from the applicants must be
put in writing and signed by all affected departments and outside agencies. Additional
changes should not be permitted except for extraordinary circumstances.
5F. Finding: The Department lacks comprehensive performance standards by which they can
measure customer satisfaction. As an example, the staff assigned to the Current Planning unit has
a 30 day limit for internal review of projects and distribution of plans to other affected agencies
( i. e. EM, DOT, school district, fire district, etc.). Beyond the 30 day limit, there is no other
41
performance standard that addresses work completion. The department has a Customer Service
Questionnaire that is found on their website but it is not found in all their Permit Center counters.
If available and completed at the counter, the department is only measuring customer satisfaction
for services performed in only one small segment of the process.
5Ra. Recommendation: Develop appropriate and specific performance standards for
each division to gauge work completion, customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness.
Revise existing Customer Service Questionnaire to reflect new performance standards.
5Rb. Recommendation: Enclose a Customer Service Questionnaire with the issuance of
all aspects of the permit review and issuance process.
5Rc. Recommendation: Make Questionnaires available in visible locations at all Permit
Centers.
5Rd. Recommendation: Questionnaires and return envelopes should be handed out to
the contractor or owner/ builder after final inspection.
5Re. Recommendation: Questionnaires should be reviewed and discussed on a regular
basis by the Department Director and other top managers.
6F. Finding: The Department processes requests for building inspections on a timely basis.
However, there is a departmental attitude toward the role of the Building inspectors as “ just spot
checkers” that conveys superficial and unsafe inspections and makes homeowners, contractors and
builders question the purpose of the inspections. Furthermore, some Building Inspectors have
provided wrong information related to building code requirements and have had to be corrected by
the contractor. Some of these inspectors were training junior inspectors which further exacerbate
the problem.
6Ra. Recommendation: Top management needs to change its attitude as to the role of
Building Inspectors and educate the employees and the public as to the seriousness of the
inspections.
6Rb. Recommendation: Assign a Senior Building Inspector to provide periodic in- house
training for all inspectors to insure current and consistent application of building codes.
7F. Finding: The website needs revisions to make it more user friendly.
7Ra. Recommendation: Include an organizational chart of the department with names,
telephones numbers and fax numbers of key contacts.
7Rb. Recommendation: Include a statement on the mission and vision of the department
to inform the user of the department’s responsibilities.
7Rc. Recommendation: Make it a top priority for the public to be able to get a permit and
pay fees on line.
42
8F. Finding: The Planning Commission meets twice a month during daytime hours. Sometimes
agenda items are rescheduled due to additional requests of information by either commissioners,
departments and/ or the public. This results in wasted time and frustration on the part of the
applicants.
8Ra. Recommendation: Management agrees that it needs to work closer with the
Commission in anticipating their needs. Periodic workshops between county staff and
Commissioners should be held to better define the role of the Commission.
8Rb. Recommendation: Standardize as much as possible the review process for
discretionary projects so as to preclude “ re- inventing the wheel” with every project.
8Rc. Recommendation: Timely and written responses by affected departments and outside
agencies should be required to expedite the review process.
8Rd. Recommendation: Planning Commission should meet during evening hours, such as
once a quarter, to obtain additional public input as it pertains to the implementation of the
County General Plan, code and ordinance changes and other land use policies. The value of
the additional public input surpasses that of any overtime payment required for county staff
( only the clerical staff would be subject to overtime payment).
9F. Finding: The Grand Jury had great difficulty in obtaining individuals in the community
( developers, builders, contractors, members of trade organizations, etc.), who would speak to the
Grand Jury as to their experiences for fear of future retaliation by DS planning and building staff.
A number of them expressed concern as to the hiring of personnel who, according to them, came
from slow growth or no- growth counties and were applying their individual interpretation to the
new General Plan. Those who came forward stated that they have chosen not to speak out in the
past because their livelihood depend on keeping on good terms with departmental staff so that their
building and planning projects are processed in a timely manner. Their experiences were specific to
the new department and did not involve any other county department.
9Ra. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors is ultimately responsible for the
implementation of the General Plan by providing leadership and direction to all parties
involved. The Board should it make very clear to all departmental personnel that any
retaliation by any employee against a customer will not be tolerated, and he/ she will be
subject to disciplinary action.
9Rb. Recommendation: The Department should convene the Building Industry Advisory
Committee ( BIAC), whose members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, on a more
regular basis, quarterly or as needed, to seek input not just on building matters but also on
planning issues.
9Rc. Recommendation: The Department should hold periodic workshops with professional
and trade organizations and the public at large to seek public input on issues of interest before
they are acted upon by departmental staff
43
A response is required by the Board of Supervisors within ninety ( 90) days. See Table of Contents,
“ Notice to Respondents.”
44
EL DORADO COUNTY
Grand Jury
2005- 2006 Mid- Year Report
January 4, 2006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EL DORADO COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 472
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667
GRAND JURY
Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477
e- mail: gand. iwvliaco. eldorado~
FAX: 530- 295- 0763
January 4,2006
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
Placerville Office
Rusty Dupray, Supervisor, District I
Helen K. Baurnann, Supervisor, District I1
James R. " Jack" Sweeney, Supervisor, District I11
Charlie Paine, Supervisor, District IV
Norma Santiago, Supervisor, District V
Dear Members of the Board,
The 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury is releasing an interim report detailing an audit into
SB- 163 as administered by the county department of Mental Health. Upon conclusion of
the audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy Corporation, the grand jury has approved the
attached conclusions and recommendations. An investigation was originally initiated by
last year's grand jury and only recently completed.
This grand jury takes this report and the attached audit seriously. I would also like to
acknowledge the cooperation of the county employees, the department of Mental
Health, and the H. M.- ROS~ A ccountancy Corporation. - ;. -
;? - e ..&
We look forward to the continued cooperation between the Grand Jury, the Board of
Supervisors, the office of the Chief Administrator and the Mental Health Department.
Respectfully,
Douglas Clough, Foreman
2005- 2006 County Grand Jury
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EL DORADO COUNTY
POST OFFICE BOX 472
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667
January 4,2006
Honorable Douglas C. Phimister
Superior Court
2850 Fairlane Court Placervil le,
CA 95667
Judge Phimister,
GRAND JURY
Telephone ( 530) 621- 7477
e- mail: grand. iu~@ co~ eldorado. ca. us
FAX: 530- 295- 0763
The members of the 2005- 2006 County Grand Jury have decided to release an interim
report detailing an investigation into the county department of Mental Health. Upon
conclusion of the investigation and an independent audit by the H. M. Rose Accountancy
Corporation, the grand jury has made the attached findings and recommendations. This
investigation was originally reported to last year's grand jury that was unable to conduct
an inquiry due to time constraints. The grand jury has made specific findings and
recommendations in accordance with the California Penal Code.
The grand jury takes its responsibility seriously and we look forward to completing the
term in a professional manner. I would also like to acknowledge the county employees,
the department of Mental Health, and the H. M Rose Accountancy Corporation for
assisting us with this investigation
Respectfully,
Douglas Clough, Foreman
2005- 2006 County Grand Jury
NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS
For the assistance of all Respondents, Penal Code Section 933.05 is summarized as follows:
How to Respond to Findings
The responding person or entity must respond in one of two ways:
1. That you agree with the finding.
2. That you disagree wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall
specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the
reasons for the disagreement.
How to Respond to Recommendations
Recommendations by the Grand Jury require action. The responding person or entity must report
action on all recommendations in one of four ways:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. If the person or entity reports in this
manner, the law requires a detailed explanation of the analysis or study and timeframe
not to exceed six months. In this event, the analysis or study must be submitted to the
officer, director or governing body of the agency being investigated.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefore.
Time to Respond, Where and to Whom to Respond
Depending on the type of Respondent, Penal Code Section 933.05 provides for two different
response times and to whom you must respond:
1. Public Agency: The governing body of any public agency must respond within ninety
( 90) days. The response must be addressed to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
2. Elective Officer or Agency Head: All elected officers or heads of agencies who are
required to respond must do so within sixty ( 60) days to the Presiding Judge of the
Superior Court, with an information copy provided to the Board of Supervisors.
Mental Health Audit Report
GJ05- 001
Background
While the 2004- 2005 Grand Jury was investigating a complaint it became aware of issues
with the SB- 163 program, also known as the “ Wraparound Program”, that required
further examination and investigation. The analysis included program implementation,
fiscal records and tracking procedures within the Mental Health department. The Grand
Jury hired an outside auditor that specializes in county and state agency audits, the
Harvey M. Rose ( HMR) Accountancy Corporation. The Harvey M. Rose firm agreed to
do a financial audit of the SB- 163 program, which is administered by Mental Health. This
audit started in June of 2005 and was completed in November of 2005, with the final
report submitted in December of 2005.
Findings
The Grand Jury has accepted the Final Report of the audit of the El Dorado County SB-
163 program. The Grand Jury adopts the Report’s conclusions as its findings. The Grand
Jury also wholly agree with the findings ( conclusions) and recommendations thereof ( see
exhibit A). These findings ( conclusions) and recommendations have also been reviewed
and approved by the presiding judge of the El Dorado County Grand Jury. The Report’s
recommendations are itemized as follows:
Recommendations
1. Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the
Multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised of, at
minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental Health and
Probation.
2. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of overseeing
the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and objectives,
determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as part of the
County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving and reviewing
regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and cost effectiveness,
and making adjustments to program operations when needed.
3. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the
Wraparound program.
4. Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost
effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors, to
include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s meeting
records; achievement of program goals; staff training records; accessibility of the
program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by participating families.
5. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the County
Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and providing
services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not assigned to
authorized service allocation slots.
6. Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the program
plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in children’s
services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made regarding
expenditure of such funds.
7. Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program Memorandum of
Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental Health, Human Services
and Probation to replace the MOU among these departments that expired in
September 2005.
8. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue and
expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be served, slots
to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating children served
and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back to the Board within
six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make the budget more realistic.
9. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual
revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions about
the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary nonrevenue
generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.
10. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly
monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served for
comparison to the budget.
11. Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound
program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget
document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and previous
year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating children
program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service hours and
expenditures for unique external goods and services.
12. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately
$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board of
Supervisors for review.
13. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its annual
program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the number of
children referred to and considered for the program; the number and backgrounds of
those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation slots; and, the
number and backgrounds of those receiving services with Wraparound funding but
not assigned to service allocation slots.
14. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written
procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services
with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
15. Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual
estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a base
line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater consistency
between service plans and service provider availability.
This Grand Jury report must be responded to by the Board of Supervisors within ninety
( 90) days as directed by the Penal Code 933.05 ( b) ( 2) and ( 3).
Exhibit
A
Audit of Claiming and Financial and other Reporting
for the
Wraparound Program of El Dorado County
Prepared for:
The FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury
Prepared by:
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
December, 2005
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary................................................................................. i
Introduction............................................................................................ 1
1. Wraparound program overview & glossary of terms................................. 3
2. Compliance with Wraparound program requirements ............................... 6
3. Wraparound program fiscal management ............................................... 19
4. Wraparound program records................................................................ 29
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
i
Executive Summary
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the FY 2004- 05 and FY
2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit of El Dorado
County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for Wraparound, or S. B.
163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by the County
Departments of Mental Health and Human Services.
A summary of the findings and recommendations contained in this audit report are as
follows. The recommendations are numbered according to their respective section in this
report.
A summary of the first section of the report is not presented here as it is an overview of
the County’s Wraparound program and does not contain findings or recommendations.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound Program Requirements
􀂉 Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to flexibly use
State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group home placements
to provide individualized services to prevent at risk children from being
placed in group homes. In El Dorado County, funding is obtained from the
State by the Department of Human Services, combined with County funds and
transferred to the Department of Mental Health which administers the
program.
􀂉 The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance
documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Human Services and Mental
Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the absence of an executive
management team assuming responsibility for planning and monitoring
program performance and a lack of procedures to ensure family understanding
of and input to the program. Among other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound
program management structure has resulted in under- expending available
program funds, lower service levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every
year of the program.
􀂉 State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services
designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children. State
funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each month. The
County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded program participation
by including children at risk of group home placement in addition to those in
the authorized service allocation slots. Services for these other children are
provided with funds not spent on the children in the authorized slots. The
methods for determining eligibility and expenditure levels for these additional
children have not been documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any
other Department documents.
Executive Summary
􀂉 A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in the
Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of such savings
has not been established nor has a process for the two departments to
determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result, approximately
$ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the last three year fiscal
years that could have been reinvested in other services for children.
Recommendations
Based on the above findings, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors should:
2.1 Formally delegate management responsibility for the Wraparound program to the
multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council to continue to be comprised
of, at minimum, the directors of the Departments of Human Services, Mental
Health and Probation.
2.2 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to meet regularly such as quarterly for the purpose of
overseeing the Wraparound program including setting annual program goals and
objectives, determining funding and resource allocations at least once a year as
part of the County budget process, establishing operational guidelines, receiving
and reviewing regularly produced management reports on program outcomes and
cost effectiveness, and making adjustments to program operations when needed.
2.3 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to operate in compliance with State laws governing the
Wraparound program.
2.4 Direct the multi- departmental Interagency Governing Council Wraparound
management team to prepare annual summary evaluations of program and cost
effectiveness for their own review and transmission to the Board of Supervisors,
to include documentation of: program compliance with State law; the team’s
meeting records; achievement of program goals; staff training records;
accessibility of the program to the target population; and, program satisfaction by
participating families.
2.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to amend the
County Wraparound Plan to include procedures and protocols for admitting and
providing services to non- revenue generating children in the program who are not
assigned to authorized service allocation slots.
2.6 Direct the Wraparound inter- departmental management team to amend the
program plan to include a definition of program “ cost savings to be reinvested in
children’s services” and to establish procedures for how decisions will be made
regarding expenditure of such funds.
2.7 Direct appropriate County staff to draft a new Wraparound program
Memorandum of Understanding for execution by the Departments of Mental
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
ii
Executive Summary
Health, Human Services and Probation to replace the MOU among these
departments that expired in September 2005.
Section 3: Wraparound Program Fiscal Management
􀂉 State and local funding is provided to the County’s Wraparound program based
on the number of “ service allocation slots” filled by children participating in the
program. Between its inception in August 2002 and June 2005, the County
authorized six service allocation slots per month but filled an average of only 4.8.
As a result, the County did not collect an estimated $ 182,484 in available program
funding that would have enabled services to an additional 18.7 children.
􀂉 In addition to under- recovered available revenue, program expenditures were
approximately $ 173,244 less than actual funding received during the three fiscal
years reviewed. These unspent funds have been carried over each year and are
still available for the program, but reflect lower service levels for program
participants and unnecessary encumbrance of County General Fund monies
during the review period. Combined with the $ 182,484 in funds not recovered due
to unfilled service allocation slots, the County did not provide $ 355,728 worth of
Wraparound services that could have been provided during the three fiscal years
reviewed.
􀂉 During the three years reviewed, actual Wraparound program revenues were
$ 327,938 less than budgeted revenues and actual program expenditures were
$ 628,547 less than budgeted. These substantial variances reflect a lack of program
planning and oversight by Mental Health and Human Services Department
executive management.
􀂉 Total reported Department of Mental Health salary and benefits costs for
Wraparound were only $ 4,775 and $ 10,912 the first two years of the program,
respectively, but increased to $ 304,547 in FY 2004- 05. Department of Mental
Health staff report that staff time sheet and billing records did not capture all staff
time dedicated to the program in its first two fiscal years. If actual staff costs were
higher than the amounts charged to program funds, those program costs were
covered by other Department funding sources, inappropriately curtailing other
services.
􀂉 Though encouraged by the Wraparound program concept, only $ 9,307, or 1.5
percent of total program expenditures during the three fiscal years reviewed, have
been spent on unique goods and services jointly identified by program
participants, their families and County staff as being in the best interests of the
child. Most of the program funding has been used for traditional County staff-provided
services.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
iii
Executive Summary
Recommendations
Based on the findings presented in this section, it is recommended that the El Dorado
County Board of Supervisors:
3.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to review the Wraparound program FY 2005- 06 revenue
and expenditure budget, its assumptions about the number of children to be
served, slots to be filled, actual number of “ slotted” and non- revenue generating
children served and actual revenues and expenditures year- to- date and report back
to the Board within six weeks on whether adjustments should be made to make
the budget more realistic.
3.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to prepare a budget plan each year based on the actual
revenues and expenditures for the previous year and documented assumptions
about the number of children to be served, both slotted and discretionary non-revenue
generating, and the nature of services to be provided in the budget year.
3.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to at least quarterly
monitor actual program revenues and expenditures and number of children served
for comparison to the budget.
3.4 Direct the Chief Administrative Officer to separately present the Wraparound
program budget each year in the proposed Department of Mental Health budget
document presented to the Board of Supervisors and to include planned and
previous year actual numbers of slotted and discretionary non- revenue generating
children program participants, hours of staff service provided, contractor service
hours and expenditures for unique external goods and services.
3.5 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team and Chief
Administrative Officer to develop an expenditure plan for the approximately
$ 173,244 Wraparound program fund balance and transmit the plan to the Board
for review.
Section 4: Wraparound Program Records
􀂉 Claims for State Wraparound funding are filed by the Department of Human
Services each month as part of its larger claim for Foster Care funding. A
review of Department records showed that there is sufficient supporting
documentation for the Wraparound program claims filed between FY 2002-
03 and 2004- 05.
􀂉 The Department of Mental Health’s Wraparound program accounting,
timesheet and other records do not provide sufficient information to
determine if program funding has been properly accounted for since the
program’s inception. A new record- keeping system implemented in
February 2005 has improved this situation but since it was not in place for
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
iv
Executive Summary
the first two and a half years of the program, it is not possible to accurately
determine actual program costs during that time or the source of funding for
all services provided.
􀂉 A review of Department of Mental Health time sheets and contractor
billings for four randomly selected months showed that actual staff hours
and costs were higher than recorded in the Department’s financial records.
Time and cost records were not compiled or reviewed by program managers
prior to February 2005 to ensure that program funding was appropriately
used and accounted for.
􀂉 Program records are maintained reporting the number of children assigned
to service allocation slots but there is no documentation of the number of
children considered for Wraparound service allocation slots who were not
accepted in to the program. There is no documentation at all of the number
of other at risk children considered for and accepted in to the program who
are not assigned to service allocation slots. Such information should be
recorded to document that all children in the program meet the eligibility
criteria and to determine if adjustments are needed to the number of service
allocation slots authorized by the County.
􀂉 A review of treatment plans and time sheets for four randomly selected
months showed variances between services planned for children in the
program and what was actually delivered. While there may be valid reasons
to divert from original treatment plans as a child’s situation changes, a
comparison of planned to actual staff and contractor hours and services
should be regularly prepared to ensure that program resources are being
allocated effectively.
Recommendations
Based on the above findings, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors:
4.1 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to include in its
annual program evaluation provided to the Board of Supervisors: statistics on the
number of children referred to and considered for the program; the number and
backgrounds of those admitted to the program and assigned to service allocation
slots; and, the number and backgrounds of those receiving services with
Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
4.2 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare written
procedures regarding eligibility and services offered to children receiving services
with Wraparound funding but not assigned to service allocation slots.
4.3 Direct the inter- departmental Wraparound management team to prepare annual
estimates of staff and contractor availability for the program and to use this as a
base line when service plans are prepared to ensure that there is greater
consistency between service plans and service provider availability.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
v
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
1
Introduction
The Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation was retained by the Fiscal Year ( FY)
2004- 05 and FY 2005- 06 El Dorado County Grand Jury to conduct a limited scope audit
of El Dorado County’s reporting, claiming and financial reporting processes for
Wraparound, or S. B. 163, and other federal and State- funded programs administered by
the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services. The objectives of the
audit were to determine:
· Whether the County’s Departments of Human Services and Mental Health maintain
appropriate records to demonstrate service levels and properly record costs of the
County's SB 163 Wraparound Program and any other related federal and State grant
programs administered by the two departments;
· Whether appropriate internal controls have been established and are followed by the
two departments to ensure that federal and State grant funds are expended for
intended purposes;
· Whether generally accepted cost accounting methodologies are followed by the two
departments when determining program costs related to these and other federal and
State funded programs; and,
· Whether excess reserves or surplus funds have accumulated, or if all funding
available has been made available to support services for program recipients.
While the initial focus of the audit was all federal and State- funded programs
administered by the County Departments of Mental Health and Human Services, the
Wraparound program was identified during the field work phase of the audit as the most
relevant program for review. The other program that was reviewed was the Supportive
and Therapeutic Options Program ( STOP), a State funded program that provides mental
health related day treatment and aftercare services to families with children at risk of out-of-
home placement and those exiting foster care. Because of the small amount of
program funding and expenditures ( actual expenditures were reportedly $ 28,678 for FY
2004- 05 as of July 7, 2005) relative to the Wraparound program, limited audit hours were
redirected to an analysis of the latter program after a review of key STOP program
documents.
Audit Methods
Methods used to conduct this audit included the following:
q Interviews with directors, relevant managers and key staff at the Department of
Human Services and the Department of Mental Health
Introduction
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
2
q Review of key program documents including enabling State legislation, the County’s
Wraparound plan and Memoranda of Understanding between all departments
involved in the program.
q Analysis of Wraparound program financial information and documents including
budget and revenue/ expenditure documents from the County’s financial system,
Department of Human Services foster care claim records and supporting
documentation, Wraparound program special fund General Ledger reports and journal
entry documentation.
q Review of written procedures regarding program eligibility and intake.
q Analysis of program participant rosters for each month that the program has been in
effect through June 2005.
q Review and analysis of Department of Mental Health case files, treatment plans and
billing records for a sample of children in the Wraparound program.
q Review of a sample of case files and outcome documentation.
q Review of minutes from Cross- Systems Operations Team and Placement- Referral
sub- committee minutes between August 2002 and June 2005.
q Review of literature on the Wraparound program.
q Review of County documentation on County’s Supportive and Therapeutic Options
Program ( STOP) program.
Field work was conducted between June and October, 2005. A draft audit report was
prepared with the results presented in three areas of findings and recommendations. The
draft report was provided to the Grand Jury and the directors of the Human Services and
Mental Health departments for their review and comments and an exit conference
meeting took place with the directors and other representatives of the departments before
the report was finalized and submitted to the Grand Jury in December 2005. This audit
was prepared in compliance with the work program submitted to and approved by the FY
2004- 05 El Dorado County Grand Jury in June 2005.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
3
1. Wraparound program overview and glossary of
terms
The Wraparound program was created by State legislation adopted in 1997 that allowed
California counties to use State foster care and Adoption Assistance funds in a flexible
manner to provide eligible youth with services as an alternative to group home care. The
program was originally designed for youths who are residing, or are at risk of being
placed, in group homes licensed at Rate Classification Levels 12- 141, the most costly out-of-
home facilities designed for youths with severe emotional disturbances. Under the
Wraparound program, qualified youth are provided with intensive, individualized family-based
services designed to keep them with their families, or to return them to their
families if they are already in an out- of- home placement. Services can be provided,
according to the State legislation, to youths living with their birth parents, relatives,
adoptive parents, licensed or certified foster parents, or guardians.
Funding for the program consists of State funding at the same rate as would be provided
for group home placements, which vary based on each participant’s Rate Classification
Level. The County is required to match the State funds provided at the rate of 60 percent
of the total cost. The funds are provided to the County’s welfare department ( Department
of Human Services in El Dorado County) which may enter into interagency agreements
with other County departments for the provision of wraparound services.
State law requires participating counties, at their option, to develop a plan for wraparound
services and monitor the provision of those services consistent with the plan. The plan, to
be submitted to the State Department of Social Services for informational purposes, is to
include:
q A process and protocol for reviewing and determining eligibility for the program
q Processes for developing, modifying and denying individualized services plans
for each youth participant
q A process for parent support, mentoring, and advocacy to ensure parent
understanding and participation in the program
q A planning and review process to support and facilitate the following program
principles:
o Focus on individual child through individualized service plans
o Providing services geared to enabling the participants to remain in the
least restrictive, most family- like settings possible
o Developing a close and collaborative relationship with the family
o Conducting a thorough, strengths- based assessment of each child and
family that serves as the basis of the individualized service plan
o Designing and delivering services that incorporate the religious customs,
and regional, racial, and ethnic values of the youths and families served
o Measuring consumer satisfaction to assess outcomes
1 See Glossary at the end of this section for definition of Rate Classification Level.
Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
4
q Written interagency agreements or memorandum of understanding between the
county departments of social services, mental health and probation that specify
jointly provided or integrated services, staff tasks and responsibilities, budget
considerations and related matters.
The statute also requires that each county evaluate its program to determine it cost and
effectiveness of outcomes. Each county is to ensure that staff participating in the project
has completed training provided or approved by the California Department of Social
Services.
The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot project to be concluded by
October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20002, expanded the definition of
eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing in a group home at RCL 10
or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the initial legislation was repealed
indefinitely, according to the California Department of Social Services3. Other than these
changes, most of the other program definitions remained the same.
Details on El Dorado County’s implementation of the Wraparound program are presented
in the next three sections of this report.
Glossary of terms used in this report
Client Goods and Services: A classification of expenditures used in this report for
Department of Mental Health expenditures for non- departmental
goods and services provided to children participants and their
families such as lessons for the children or transportation
services for families. Such services are identified by the child,
the child’s family and other members of his or her support team
usually through Wraparound program interactions facilitated by
County staff or contractor.
Eligible child: A child who is any of the following: 1) a child adjudicated as
either a dependent or ward of the juvenile court pursuant to
[ Welfare Institutions Code] Section 300, 601 or 602 and who
would be placed in a group home licensed by the department at a
Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher; 2) a child who would
be voluntarily placed in out- of- home care pursuant to Section
7572.5 of the Government Code; or, 3) a child who is currently,
or who would be, placed in a group home licensed by the
department at a Rate Classification Level of 10 or higher.
Group home: An alternative to traditional in- home foster care for children, in
which children are housed in a home- like setting with a number
of unrelated children who stay for varying periods of time. The
2 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter
259, Statutes of 2000.
3 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a
representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.
Section 1: Wraparound program overview and glossary of terms
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
5
children are supervised by a combination of house parents and/ or
staff. More specialized therapeutic or treatment group homes
have specially- trained staff to assist children with emotional and
behavioral difficulties. The make- up and staffing of the group
home can be adapted to meet the unique needs of its residents.
Program participant: Term used in this report for a child that has been assigned by the
County to the program either in a service allocation slot or
without one.
Rate Classification Level ( RCL):
A standardized classification system for children in placement
that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and
determines the type of facility and services they need.
S. B. 163: The original State legislation that authorized the first version of
the Wraparound program.
Service allocation slot: Defined in State Wraparound program law as a specified amount
of funds available to the county to pay for an individualized
intensive wraparound services package for an eligible child. A
service allocation slot may be used for more than one child on a
successive basis. [ California Welfare & Institutions Code 18251]
Support Team: A term used in this report to represent the family members and
others who comprise the team that provides and organizes
services for a Wraparound program participant child. Generally,
these teams meet regularly with a County or contract facilitator
and the child to monitor progress and plan and organize services.
Wraparound: Individualized family- based services provided as an alternative
to group home care. Services are “ wrapped around” a child
living with his or her birth parents, relatives, foster parents,
adoptive parents or guardians. Services emphasize the strengths
of the child and family and includes the delivery of coordinated
and highly individualized services to address the child’s needs
and to achieve positive outcomes.
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
6
2. Compliance with Wraparound program
requirements
q Wraparound is a State- authorized program that allows counties to
flexibly use State and local funds that would otherwise be used for group
home placements to provide individualized services to prevent at risk
children from being placed in group homes. In El Dorado County,
funding is obtained from the State by the Department of Human Services,
combined with County funds and transferred to the Department of
Mental Health which administers the program.
q The County is not operating in full compliance with its key governance
documents: State law; the County Wraparound plan; and, a
Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health. Key areas of non- compliance include: the
absence of an executive management team assuming responsibility for
planning and monitoring program performance and a lack of procedures
to ensure family understanding of and input to the program. Among
other impacts, the lack of a Wraparound program management structure
has resulted in under- expending available program funds, lower service
levels than anticipated and over- budgeting every year of the program.
q State legislation requires that counties providing Wraparound services
designate a number of service allocation slots for participating children.
State funding is provided based on the number of such slots filled each
month. The County’s Department of Mental Health has expanded
program participation by including children at risk of group home
placement in addition to those in the authorized service allocation slots.
Services for these other children are provided with funds not spent on the
children in the authorized slots. The methods for determining eligibility
and expenditure levels for these additional children have not been
documented in the County’s Wraparound plan or any other Department
documents.
q A Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Human
Services and Mental Health calls for reinvestment of savings realized in
the Wraparound program to other children’s services. A definition of
such savings has not been established nor has a process for the two
departments to determine how funds should be reinvested. As a result,
approximately $ 173,244 in program funding has accumulated over the
last three year fiscal years that could have been reinvested in other
services for children.
The key documents governing the Wraparound program are: 1) State legislation
authorizing the program; 2) the County’s Wraparound program plan; and, 3) two
Memoranda of Understanding ( MOUs) between the departments involved in the
programs, setting forth the roles and responsibilities of each. A review of the
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
7
requirements of these documents compared to actual program activity reveals that many
of the requirements have not been met.
State funding for the Wraparound program is claimed by and transmitted to the County
Department of Human Services as part of the County foster care program. The
Department of Mental Health provides direct services or arranges for contract services for
the children in the program. Participants are referred to the program by the Department of
Human Services- Child Protective Services division, the Department of Mental Health,
County schools and the Probation Department.
State legislation
There are two State statutes governing the Wraparound program. The first, adopted in
19971, allows each county to participate in the program and provide children with service
alternatives to placement in group homes. This legislation enables participating counties
to obtain State funding that would otherwise be provided for group home placement costs
and use it, in conjunction with a mandatory County contribution, for flexibly defined
family- based services provided to eligible children at risk of group home placement.
The original legislation defines eligibility for the program as children who are either
wards of the juvenile court or dependents and who would be placed in a group home with
a license for treating children classified at Rate Classification Level ( RCL) 12 or above 2.
Wraparound services are defined in the legislation as,
“ community- based intervention services that emphasize the strengths of the child and family and
includes the delivery of coordinated, highly individualized unconditional services to address needs
and achieve positive outcomes in their lives.”
The program is optional for counties but the legislation requires that any county that
chooses to participate has to develop a plan for Wraparound services and has to monitor
the provision of such services. The initial legislation established Wraparound as a pilot
project to be concluded by October 1, 2003. Subsequent legislation, adopted in 20003,
expanded the definition of eligibility to include children residing in, or at risk of residing
in a group home at RCL 10 or above. The program ending date of October 2003 in the
initial legislation was repealed indefinitely, according to the California Department of
Social Services4. Other than these changes, most of the other program definitions
remained the same.
1 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18250- 18257, adopted as Senate Bill 163, Chapter 795, Statutes
of 1997.
2 Rate Classification Levels, or RCLs, are a standardized classification system for children in placement
that measures their overall emotional and mental condition and determines the type of facility and services
they need.
3 California Welfare & Institutions Code § 18252 and 18254, as amended by Assembly Bill 2706, Chapter
259, Statutes of 2000.
4 The ending date was repealed through separate trailer legislation according to a telephone interview with a
representative of the California Department of Social Services, October 4, 2005.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
8
Some of the key requirements of State Wraparound legislation and El Dorado’s
compliance, are summarized in Chart 2.1 below.
Chart 2.1 shows that El Dorado County has complied with some but not all of the
requirements of State law governing the Wraparound program. A program plan is in
place and protocols have been established governing referrals and eligibility for six
County authorized service allocation slots, meaning that six children at risk of group
home placement can be officially enrolled in the program at any one time and the State
will provide its share of what would be the cost of placement in a group home for these
children. Formalized processes for monitoring the program’s accessibility to the target
population and for ensuring parent understanding of and involvement in the program are
not in place.
Treatment plans are prepared for every child in the program by the Department of Mental
Health but they are not different than treatment plans for other children served. They do
not specifically address family strengths or indicate what the family wants for the child.
An interagency Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) between the County
Departments of Mental Health, Human Services, Probation and Public Health and the
County Office of Education was executed in 2001 outlining program services and the
roles and responsibilities of each agency. That MOU expired in September 2005. A
separate MOU between the Departments of Mental Health and Social Services only was
executed in February 2005 covering the roles and responsibilities and financial
relationships of these two departments.
An evaluation of the program’s treatment and cost effectiveness was prepared by the
Department of Mental Health in 2000. While it presented information on some program
successes, it did not include actual program cost data and reported that half of the
children in the service allocation slots did end up in group home placements. Ideally, the
evaluation would have included an assessment of why these cases were not successful
and suggestions for decreasing the number of children in the program who are placed in
group homes.
Section 2: Compliance with Wraparound program requirements
Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation
9
Chart 2.1
El Dorado County’s Compliance with Key
Requirements of State Wraparound Legislation
State requirement Implemented Not implemented
1 County must develop a Wraparound
services plan to be eligible for
program funding.
County adopted a comprehensive
Wraparound plan, submitted to
the State in March 2000.
2 County must develop a protocol for
reviewing eligibility of children and
families in program and for
monitoring accessibility and
availability of services to the target
population.
Partial: County has a protocol for
reviewing eligibility of children
assigned to service allocatio